Batter out of box

[SanDiegoSteve]

Oh come on now. You guys are a crack up. You can't honestly say that if you see the batter step across the plate before the pitch comes, and he doesn't move from that spot, that he isn't out of the box when he hits the ball. Common sense tells you that he is out of the box. He didn't just magically appear outside of the box after the hit, nor did he jump into the air at the moment of impact either. He's standing there, blocking your view of the pitch, for cryin' out loud. How can you not see that he's out of the box?

You guys are just in love with being right all the time. It also seems like you would love to avoid any controversy at all costs, as this play would interupt the flow of your game.

The four man crew Tee was describing earlier would be a hoot to watch, I'm sure.

And Dave,

LLUmp13 was working a 7 year old child softball game, just what kind of good, tight zone was he supposed to have? He probably would have been there 4 or 5 hours if he didn't expand his zone. Everybody has to start somewhere, so give him a break.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh come on now. You guys are a crack up. You can't honestly say that if you see the batter step across the plate before the pitch comes, and he doesn't move from that spot, that he isn't out of the box when he hits the ball. Common sense tells you that he is out of the box. He didn't just magically appear outside of the box after the hit, nor did he jump into the air at the moment of impact either. He's standing there, blocking your view of the pitch, for cryin' out loud. How can you not see that he's out of the box?

You guys are just in love with being right all the time. It also seems like you would love to avoid any controversy at all costs, as this play would interupt the flow of your game.

The four man crew Tee was describing earlier would be a hoot to watch, I'm sure.

And Dave,

LLUmp13 was working a 7 year old child softball game, just what kind of good, tight zone was he supposed to have? He probably would have been there 4 or 5 hours if he didn't expand his zone. Everybody has to start somewhere, so give him a break.

1. We are all the product of our experiences. Mine have obviously been different than yours.

2. You have graduated from the simple hypothetical to the third world hypothetical....congratulations. I have no answer for third world hypotheticals as I am lacking in that experience. I am amazed that after all the posts I'ver read about the wonderful calibre of ball you work and the MLB players you've had in your previous games and all the MLB umpires you've worked with that you still have games in which the players are this ignorant. I have not been so fortunate.

3. Widening one's zone should not include pitches that strike the plate, at any level of play.

4. A hoot indeed. At least three of the four have worked D-1 and various levels of pro-ball. (I am not up to date on Crowder's background) They each use CCA mechanics and have a similar understanding of the game. It might come to pass, and if it does, you are free to sit in the stands and watch.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. We are all the product of our experiences. Mine have obviously been different than yours.

2. You have graduated from the simple hypothetical to the third world hypothetical....congratulations. I have no answer for third world hypotheticals as I am lacking in that experience. I am amazed that after all the posts I'ver read about the wonderful calibre of ball you work and the MLB players you've had in your previous games and all the MLB umpires you've worked with that you still have games in which the players are this ignorant. I have not been so fortunate.

3. Widening one's zone should not include pitches that strike the plate, at any level of play.

4. A hoot indeed. At least three of the four have worked D-1 and various levels of pro-ball. (I am not up to date on Crowder's background) They each use CCA mechanics and have a similar understanding of the game. It might come to pass, and if it does, you are free to sit in the stands and watch.

1. I don't care what level of ball you happened to have worked. Perhaps they were desparate for umpires. I'm sure I could work any level you've ever worked. Quit using that tired old "you're not good enough" crap with me. You really don't know, and shouldn't believe anyone who would say differently. Why do you feel the need to criticize me, or make fun of me for having worked with MLB umpires (true) and many current and former MLB players (also true). It is frankly very unchristianlike, and you claim to be a Christian. How does insulting my experience improve your argument on this subject?

2. I have worked some very high caliber ball, and some pretty good games at that. I have also worked lesser games in which a player has hit the ball while obviously outside of the box. So blatant, that not to call it would be a disservice to the game.

3. I use the mechanics that were taught to me by pro school grads and MiLB umpires, and I have a pretty darn good understanding of the game. I didn't umpire as a hobby, I did it 6 or 7 days a week, nearly year round, for many years. You get a pretty good feel for it after that amount of work is put in, not to mention playing the game my whole life.

4. A real life, non-hypothetical batter was completely and blatantly out of the box when his bat contacted the ball, and I called this batter out. Many other posters would agree with me that I made the right call. You would choose to ignore it. That is your right, I guess.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

1. I don't care what level of ball you happened to have worked. Perhaps they were desparate for umpires. I'm sure I could work any level you've ever worked. Quit using that tired old "you're not good enough" crap with me. You really don't know, and shouldn't believe anyone who would say differently. Why do you feel the need to criticize me, or make fun of me for having worked with MLB umpires (true) and many current and former MLB players (also true). It is frankly very unchristianlike, and you claim to be a Christian. How does insulting my experience improve your argument on this subject?

2. I have worked some very high caliber ball, and some pretty good games at that. I have also worked lesser games in which a player has hit the ball while obviously outside of the box. So blatant, that not to call it would be a disservice to the game.

3. I use the mechanics that were taught to me by pro school grads and MiLB umpires, and I have a pretty darn good understanding of the game. I didn't umpire as a hobby, I did it 6 or 7 days a week, nearly year round, for many years. You get a pretty good feel for it after that amount of work is put in, not to mention playing the game my whole life.

4. A real life, non-hypothetical batter was completely and blatantly out of the box when his bat contacted the ball, and I called this batter out. Many other posters would agree with me that I made the right call. You would choose to ignore it. That is your right, I guess.

Steve, are you paranoid or insecure? I didn't make any reference to what level you work other than to relate what you have said. I know you only from your posts. If you have been truthful, I know what you want me to know.

I said our experiences have been different. That is a true statement. That is a universal statement. Only you have experienced your life. Again, this is not a statement about the level of ball anybody works. My experience is different than my partners in the same work we work.

I have never experienced the blatant situations you describe. Never. I also never said that this makes me a better umpire. I said it makes our experiences different.

Get a grip, Steve. Not every disgareement, or difference in experience is a personal affront to you.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Steve, are you paranoid or insecure? I didn't make any reference to what level you work other than to relate what you have said. I know you only from your posts. If you have been truthful, I know what you want me to know.

I said our experiences have been different. That is a true statement. That is a universal statement. Only you have experienced your life. Again, this is not a statement about the level of ball anybody works. My experience is different than my partners in the same work we work.

I have never experienced the blatant situations you describe. Never. I also never said that this makes me a better umpire. I said it makes our experiences different.

Get a grip, Steve. Not every disgareement, or difference in experience is a personal affront to you.

I am neither paranoid nor insecure in the least bit. From day 1 you have ridiculed me on the forums. Don't say I'm being paranoid, because you have been making fun of me ever since I first posted here, and wouldn't let up about it. You thought it was hysterically funny as I recall that I would even mention myself and a pro career in the same sentence, without one scintiila of knowledge of my abilities.

You threw your D-1 and pro ball experience up in my face in your post, as well as your use of CCA mechanics, as if all this was evidence of umpiring ability (BTW-it's not). I am quite certain that there was an implied "I'm better than you" inside your writing. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I don't think I'm wrong. I think that you really do believe that you are a superior official.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

3. I use the mechanics that were taught to me by pro school grads and MiLB umpires, and I have a pretty darn good understanding of the game.

What was your training from those pro school grads and MiLB umpires, with respect to calling illegal batting (batted ball with one foot out of the box)? Every clinic I've attended or heard about has training very similar to what several guys here are saying - foot out of the box is simply not a priority for the plate umpire.

And that's what they, and I, are trying to convey to those on the board who are looking for sound advice on what this rule means and how it should be enforced. Your strained hypothetical seems aimed only at forcing Tee et. al. to admit that yeah, OK, in that case you would have to call it. But that's an exercise in futility. Tee's maxims are carved in stone; I thought you knew that. Haven't you been around for one of his IIITBTSB threads?

Your hypothetical is distracting from the message the greenhorn (and some others who aren't so green) should be getting from this thread, and it is a message that is supported by professional trainers, and I bet you'll even agree with that. They say, consistently, the same things Tee and Rich are saying:

If you're properly tracking the pitch, then you can't be watching the batters feet. Call the pitch, forget the feet. Discreetly lose the front and inside lines, if they're there, and you can probably avoid having to deal with a whiney coach who picked up the same myth about how illegal batting should be enforced.

It's not about always having to be right; it's about being right, at least on the important points. And in this thread, I think you're right in your head but that's lost because you're racing to a how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin argument, needlessly. Needlessly, that is, unless you need to argue.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I already stated that I don't notice the batter's feet under normal circumstances. I also said I don't care if the batter's foot was outside the box a little when hitting the ball. I don't make a practice of looking at where the batter's feet are.

I did ask a specific question, and yes, it was aimed at those "I never have called that in 4.65 million games" type people. I presented the hypothetical (but really has happened to me) question in order to get people to admit that if they saw something that blatant, they would have the cajones to call it. That's all I was looking for. I didn't ask if they would go out of their way to see it, just that they call it if they do see it, and are certain that it happened.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

2. I have worked some very high caliber ball, and some pretty good games at that. I have also worked lesser games in which a player has hit the ball while obviously outside of the box. So blatant, that not to call it would be a disservice to the game.

Maybe this is part of the answer to the dilemma. I don't think Tee has worked a game lower than HS varsity, for example (but I might be remembering incorrectly).

I have called this violation a couple of times in my career -- at the 13/14 Pony level, and at the Frosh HS level. Both were blatant violations.

As I've moved up, I've not made the call. Maybe the players are better than to commit a blatant violation. Maybe the play is faster so I can't see the violation. Maybe it's just not happened. Maybe the players and coaches don't whine for the obscure, no-advantage call (complaints about such calls as F-3 being in foul territory, not tagging the base runner when the ball is down in plenty of time, etc. also seem to diminish at the higher levels), so I'm not looking for it.

Does Evans say anything about the intent of the rule? Is it to restrict the batters feet on a ("normal") sacrifice bunt? Or is it to prevent moving way up or way back to hit a curve / Randy Johnson fastball? Or to prevent "not accepting" an intentional walk (and putting the ball in play when the defense probably isn't ready for it)? I think it's more likely to be the latter type of examples, but I don't know.