Batter out of box

[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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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

Let's add a little more to my response, then, JM.

Batter bunts, seems to run into his bunt. I call "TIME" as the base umpire because I don't know if the plate umpire is going to rule that the batter is out of the box or not when the ball hit him. The plate umpire is going to do his best to determine this, but is very unlikely to (at least umpires I know who work higher level baseball) ask me. If there is uncertainty, the PU will rule the ball FOUL.

TussAgee11, there is no doubt that we use other pieces of information than what we see. We hear foul balls, we see batters immediately hop on a foot on foul balls off the body (of course we use this), we hear catcher's interference, etc. But worrying about where the feet are on a batted ball is just not a priority for those in this thread who say they aren't even trying to look at it. Calling the pitch is. I'd rather let the batter have a foot out than take my eyes off the pitch. Or worse, have Garth's situation where the umpire gets it wrong. Like I said earlier, please tell me the last time you've seen this called on TV. You mean those batters are ALWAYS in the box?

If we want to employ a little reductio ad absurdum, there is one situation I know where I would call this -- an intentional walk where the batter walks across the plate to hit the ball. Then again, I'm not tracking that pitch, am I?

Who, besides umpires, uses shoe polish in 2006? And I wouldn't call the coach's interference if I didn't see it -- last night I was working the plate on the state championship for Senior LL (big diamond) and we used 3 umpires. I saw what probably looked like coach's interference to someone not really watching third, but I had touch responsibility, so my eyes were there. The runner tripped over the bag, stumbled, and the coach agressively told the runner to return and, essentially, followed him back to the base. The stumble and the coach following made it look like the coach pushed him back towards third, but there was never contact. You would want to risk making a call like this if you hadn't actually seen the assistance?

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Let's add a little more to my response, then, JM.

Batter bunts, seems to run into his bunt. I call "TIME" as the base umpire because I don't know if the plate umpire is going to rule that the batter is out of the box or not when the ball hit him. The plate umpire is going to do his best to determine this, but is very unlikely to (at least umpires I know who work higher level baseball) ask me. If there is uncertainty, the PU will rule the ball FOUL.

TussAgee11, there is no doubt that we use other pieces of information than what we see. We hear foul balls, we see batters immediately hop on a foot on foul balls off the body (of course we use this), we hear catcher's interference, etc. But worrying about where the feet are on a batted ball is just not a priority for those in this thread who say they aren't even trying to look at it. Calling the pitch is. I'd rather let the batter have a foot out than take my eyes off the pitch. Or worse, have Garth's situation where the umpire gets it wrong. Like I said earlier, please tell me the last time you've seen this called on TV. You mean those batters are ALWAYS in the box?

If we want to employ a little reductio ad absurdum, there is one situation I know where I would call this -- an intentional walk where the batter walks across the plate to hit the ball. Then again, I'm not tracking that pitch, am I?

Who, besides umpires, uses shoe polish in 2006? And I wouldn't call the coach's interference if I didn't see it -- last night I was working the plate on the state championship for Senior LL (big diamond) and we used 3 umpires. I saw what probably looked like coach's interference to someone not really watching third, but I had touch responsibility, so my eyes were there. The runner tripped over the bag, stumbled, and the coach agressively told the runner to return and, essentially, followed him back to the base. The stumble and the coach following made it look like the coach pushed him back towards third, but there was never contact. You would want to risk making a call like this if you hadn't actually seen the assistance?

I can tell you the last time I saw it on TV. This year a Phillies batter was called out for contacting the ball while outside the box. His back foot was too far back, and the umpire got him on it.

Perhaps the reason we don't see it on TV much is because pro baseball players know better then to do it.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I can tell you the last time I saw it on TV. This year a Phillies batter was called out for contacting the ball while outside the box. His back foot was too far back, and the umpire got him on it.

Perhaps the reason we don't see it on TV much is because pro baseball players know better then to do it.

THAN, not THEN.

There a couple of these that simply drive me crazy.

then instead of than
your instead of you're

Your Pal,

Joe

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

your instead of you're

Your Pal,

Joe

- hope this helps.....

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

THAN, not THEN.

There a couple of these that simply drive me crazy.

then instead of than
your instead of you're

Your Pal,

Joe

Thanks for being the grammer police.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Thanks for being the grammer police.

correction: Grammar Police

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

correction: Grammar Police

Now that is just plain funny!!!

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

correction: Grammar Police

An English teacher no doubt!