Batter out of box

[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

[TussAgee11]

Boy, this thread got big quick.

JM, as Rich said, its just not the base-umps call. Its right at the PU's lap, and he needs to call it.

Steve- I'm with you. There is no possibly way if you are the PU not to see such a blatant violation. And even if you didn't, as soon as the ball was contacted, I may take a peek down at the batter's foot. Sure, I didn't see it when the ball was contacted, but I know it hasn't moved!

Imagine these scenarios:

1) Runner rounding 3rd, you are watching him. Coach grabs the kid to help him get back to third. As BU or PU, I may have never seen contact between the player and coach, but I sure as hell know that it happened. Would you all ignore that too, just because you didn't directly see it?

2) What about a pitcher who uses a spitball? Do you have to see him spit on the ball? Or is it good enough that when it comes in, and is inspected, that it has spit on it.

3) What about if a brand new baseball comes in low on a batter and you're not sure if it hit his shoe or not. Catcher picks up the ball and hands it to you, and there is a black mark on it from shoe polish. You didn't see it hit him, will you award first base?

As Umpires, we are within our right to take in all information regarding a play. I see the batter in/out of the box as one of these deals. If he is a righty batter, and after contact, I see his foot in the lefty's box, and I know it hasn't moved, he's out.

[UmpJM]

TussAgee11,

I might have a little problem with what Rich said; but, as I said, I need to think about it.

I know you didn't ask, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think there might be a little "advanced umpiring" education being offered here (for FREE, no less) and my impression is that you are missing it.

On the other hand, maybe I'm the one who is missing the point.

Just be careful about leaping into something over your head before you look. It can do serious damage to your credibility. If you care about that sort of thing.

JMO.

JM