Batter out of box

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Steve:

I don't know how to make it this any more clear.

If I am tracking a pitch correctly there is no way I am looking down at the plate area to see where a foot is at the precise time the ball is contacted.

I cannot do those two things at the same instant.

THEREFORE, as a matter of fact:

I have never looked down to see the placement of a batter's foot (feet) when bunting.

I do not have enough information to make a call I have never seen.

Regards,

I'm sorry. I don't understand. The batter squares around before the pitcher is finished winding up, he hasn't released the ball, and the batter has his foot all over the plate, way outside the box, and you don't see it? Or is it that you just don't choose to see it?

My strike zone's east and west borders are determined by their approximate location in relation to the outer edges of the 17 inch whitened 5-sided slab of rubber known as home plate. Part of my vision sees this plate on every pitch, and if there is a person standing on it, I'm going to see it.

Garth, this is not a "hypothetical question." This actually happens once in a blue moon. I wanted an answer to the question, "If you did see it, would you call it?" I didn't want an answer to "If you didn't see it?"

[mcrowder]

Steve, who cares where his feet are BEFORE he hits the ball - it's irrelevant. All that matters is where his feet are WHEN he hits the ball, and at that point you're tracking the pitch, not the feet.

You are missing the point on Tim too. You ask him to answer an impossible hypothetical, since he WILL NOT SEE IT - he's not looking down. Neither am I. Might as well ask us what we would call if we were standing at third base (as PU) when the pitch came in. It's an unanswerable hypothetical because it will never happen. It will happen as often as your hypothetical will though. Never.

If you're asking to probe for a hypothetical that he or I might conceive of calling this on, I can think of one... but it's TWP. Say your batter steps so far out in front that I actually lose sight of the pitch because the batter is actually in the way, and then he hits it, in front of his body. I suppose in that absurd case, I would have no pitch to track, and hearing the ball hit bat when he's standing ACROSS my plate, I suppose I would look down and see his foot on the ground and out of the box. However, it should be noted that if he merely lifts his foot at the right moment, even if standing across the plate, he's not out.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Steve, who cares where his feet are BEFORE he hits the ball - it's irrelevant. All that matters is where his feet are WHEN he hits the ball, and at that point you're tracking the pitch, not the feet.

You are missing the point on Tim too. You ask him to answer an impossible hypothetical, since he WILL NOT SEE IT - he's not looking down. Neither am I. Might as well ask us what we would call if we were standing at third base (as PU) when the pitch came in. It's an unanswerable hypothetical because it will never happen. It will happen as often as your hypothetical will though. Never.

If you're asking to probe for a hypothetical that he or I might conceive of calling this on, I can think of one... but it's TWP. Say your batter steps so far out in front that I actually lose sight of the pitch because the batter is actually in the way, and then he hits it, in front of his body. I suppose in that absurd case, I would have no pitch to track, and hearing the ball hit bat when he's standing ACROSS my plate, I suppose I would look down and see his foot on the ground and out of the box. However, it should be noted that if he merely lifts his foot at the right moment, even if standing across the plate, he's not out.

It is relevant if he does not move his foot and contacts the ball. It may seem Third World, but it has happened, and in a HS game, too, not kiddie ball. Standing on home plate, way outside the box, and bunted the ball. I called him out, and got no flack about the call whatsoever.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Garth, this is not a "hypothetical question." This actually happens once in a blue moon. I wanted an answer to the question, "If you did see it, would you call it?" I didn't want an answer to "If you didn't see it?"

Steve, this is, indeed, a hypothetical question. First hint: use of the word "if." Second hint: it is a conditional or contingent statement. The questioned is based on the condition or contingency of "If you did see it..."

This reminds me of a student I had a few years ago. During a debate, he said, "I don't answer hypothetical questions." I then asked, "Do you mean that if I were to ask you a hypothetical question, you wouldn't answer?"

He replied, "That's right, I wouldn't", completely ignorant of the fact that he just did.

[RPatrino]

I have only been asked to call a batter out for contacting the ball while outside the batter's box twice.

Once, as PU, defensive coach poops his pants on a bunt attempt, screaming "he's out of the box, blue!!". I turn to him, take off my mask, and giving him my best, " you are a dumba** look", I remark, "Coach, the lines are gone, would you like to redraw them for me?" His answer, " Would you call it if I did?", I retorted, "NO".

Second time, as BU in A. Fouled off bunt attempt, partner comes to me for "help". "Was he out of the box?" " I respond, "yes, he went". 1st base coach nearly falls down laughing. Partner responds, "NO, was he out of the batter's box?" I respond, " Probably not" as I turn and trot back to A.

After the game I emphasize to my partner that I am about 105 feet away from that play, and there is NO WAY I could make a call.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I'm sorry. I don't understand. The batter squares around before the pitcher is finished winding up, he hasn't released the ball, and the batter has his foot all over the plate, way outside the box, and you don't see it? Or is it that you just don't choose to see it?

My strike zone's east and west borders are determined by their approximate location in relation to the outer edges of the 17 inch whitened 5-sided slab of rubber known as home plate. Part of my vision sees this plate on every pitch, and if there is a person standing on it, I'm going to see it.

Garth, this is not a "hypothetical question." This actually happens once in a blue moon. I wanted an answer to the question, "If you did see it, would you call it?" I didn't want an answer to "If you didn't see it?"

I have games where I pray for it

I have a very good zone, so I am told. I Have called this quite a few times. It is usually foot touching the plate but I have seen guys step away from the plate clearly out of the box. How could you not see it and why would you not call it? Once there is a crack or ping, if the guy is out of the box, I am going to see it and not because I am looking for it but, because it is easy to see.

Joe

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I have games where I pray for it

I Have called this quite a few times. It is usually foot touching the plate...

When the foot was touching the plate, where was the heel? And, as someone else asked more on point, where was the pitch? If you were looking at the foot, you weren't looking at the pitch.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

When the foot was touching the plate, where was the heel? And, as someone else asked more on point, where was the pitch? If you were looking at the foot, you weren't looking at the pitch.

There is a perception here that we can't do 2 things at once. Wrong, especially when the two things are mental.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

There is a perception here that we can't do 2 things at once. Wrong, especially when the two things are mental.

They are not, they are visual. If you are focusing on the pitch all the way to the glove, you are not focusing on the foot.

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

They are not, they are visual. If you are focusing on the pitch all the way to the glove, you are not focusing on the foot.

Visual is just feedback to mental. You are saying we can't focus on the pitch and the foot at the same time, both visual feedbacks, and process both mentally, at the same time. If true we couldn't possibly focus on the foot (visual) and the sound (ball in mitt) at 1B at the same time and make a call at 1B since these are different feedbacks, sight and sound. Plus I don't have to focus all the way to the glove because if the foot is out of the box, and contact is made, it happens before the ball is to the glove.

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

I am certainly not looking to "pick a fight" with anyone over this, I'm just trying to understand.

In 12 years of coaching youth baseball (what I'm sure many of you would dismiss as "kiddie ball") I have seen two instances (that I'm aware of) of a batter hitting the ball with one foot on the ground and completely out of the box. In one case, the batter was called out & in the other no call was made. In both cases, it was blatantly obvious that the batter had batted the ball with his foot out of the box.

Earlier this year, one of our umpires (just finished his Freshman year of college - in his fifth year of umpiring) asked me about a situation he had had in a game where he called a CI & the defensive coach argued that the batter had his back foot out of the box at the time the bat hit the catcher's mitt. He stuck with his call & I advised him that he had been correct in doing so.

As I understand it, those on the "I've never seen it" side of the question are suggesting that a PU, if his mechanics and timing are proper, would not be able to see it if it were to happen. This actually makes some sense to me.

Over the weekend, I watched a tournament that featured some fairly high quality baseball and some consistently high quality umpiring. One thing I noticed was how "locked in" the PUs were when calling balls and strikes. They literally did not move a muscle until noticeably after the ball was in the catcher's mitt, past him, or the batter had hit the ball. So, it is not inconceivable to me that a good PU would be so focused on calling the pitch that the location of the batter's feet at the instant of contact would typically be a mystery to him.

However, I'm having a little trouble understanding how the BU in a 2-man crew would be so tightly focused on the ball, from 100' away, that he would not notice if a batter had one or both feet clearly out of the box at the instant of bat-ball contact. Though Garth implied that the BU had other things to be narrowly focused on, I'm a little unclear on HOW one could be so narrowly focused - especially in situations such as an IBB, a pitch-out, or a LH batter attempting a drag bunt. In which admittedly highly unusual case, I would think it should be seen and should be called. If it had never happened, there wouldn't be a rule - in professional baseball. And amateur baseball. At all levels.

Perhaps one of the learned umpires would be so kind as to explain it in a way explicit and simple enough for a poor dumb coach to understand.

Finally, though I've only ever seen one of them actually work a game, I find the notion that Messrs. Christenson, Hensley, Benham, Fronheiser & Crowder would, either individually or collectively, lack the intestinal fortitude to make a call because they were concerned about the COACH's reaction to the call beyond laughably absurd. So, it must be something else.

JM

(Edited to give credit where credit is due.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

When the foot was touching the plate, where was the heel? And, as someone else asked more on point, where was the pitch? If you were looking at the foot, you weren't looking at the pitch.

This is why, in every post, I made sure I said that the foot was entirely out of the box, or completely on the plate. I'm sure Joe knows the difference. And it is not at all hard to look down, the instant the ball contacts the bat, and see the location of the foot.

Once again, you guys equate umpiring with rocket science, and make it seem much harder than it actually is. I often tell people that they underestimate how difficult umpiring is, because they do. But some umpires overstate the difficulty.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This is why, in every post, I made sure I said that the foot was entirely out of the box, or completely on the plate. I'm sure Joe knows the difference. And it is not at all hard to look down, the instant the ball contacts the bat, and see the location of the foot.

Once again, you guys equate umpiring with rocket science, and make it seem much harder than it actually is. I often tell people that they underestimate how difficult umpiring is, because they do. But some umpires overstate the difficulty.

Actually, it's just the opposite. We are simplifyhing the game by performing one task, the most important task at that time, rather than two. It's much easier this way.

[GarthB]

I just got off the phone with a friend who is working the State Legion Championships. I related this thread to him and he related this:

Earlier today, a batter squared to bunt before the pitcher came set. He had one foot completely out of the box and on the ground. The pitcher came set and delivered. The batter layed down a great bunt and was safe at first.

The PU called him out for being out of the batter's box. The coach came out and complained. The PU told him he definately saw his foot out of the box and on the ground. The coach disagreed. The conversation got out of hand and the coach was ejected.

Kevin, my friend, was watching all this from behind the screen on on the firstbase side of the plate. What the PU didn't see while focusing on the pitch was that just prior to contact, the batter lifted his right foot off the ground and pushed off with his left foot . He was not "out of the batter's box by rule." But becuase the PU paid so much attention to his beginning stance and made a call based on that, he was ruled out and a coach was ejected.

The moral? Keep it simple. Perform the job that is expected of you most to the best of your ability. Keep your eyes on the pitch.

And with that, I bid you all a pleasant good evening. As much fun as this thread used to be, it has become tiring. I'll leave it to others to have the last word.

[SanDiegoSteve]

You made that up. HA! Good one. Coincedence? I think not.