Batter out of box

[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.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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.)

It would be difficult to be 100% sure on something like this, but the shorter answer is....

It's just not a call given to the base umpire. Simple as that. We wouldn't call it because it simply isn't ours to call.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It would be difficult to be 100% sure on something like this, but the shorter answer is....

It's just not a call given to the base umpire. Simple as that. We wouldn't call it because it simply isn't ours to call.

Rich,

Thanks for indulging me. I need to think about your response for a while.

JM

[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.