Batter out of box
 

Ok, lets say you have a batter up, and he is out of the box when he hits the ball, and he is called out. Is the ball still alive, or is it dead and any runners return? :confused:

Dead runners return. Does it make sense that the ball could still be live if it was batted illegally?

ok I just wanted to clear that up. :o Wasnt 100% on it

Best bet--don't call it. As one of mentors likes to say, "It has to be obnoxious." He uses this adjective in place of "obvious," but one gets his point.

I've had the call a couple of times. Once, a would-be bunter squared around with his inside foot way way way far out of the box and on terra firma. He didn't offer at pitch 1, after which I whispered, "Batter, watch your feet." He didn't. On the next pitch, with foot just as bad, he tapped the rock foul. I banged him out on bat-ball contact, leading to a major tension convention. Aggrieved coach said that batter's foot had to be entirely on the plate for me to make such a call.

Ace

what brought this up
 

Well what brought this up is, I was the plate umpire for a major division softball game last sunday, and the losing teams manager (Who is clearly a hott head) wanted to argue that the opposing teams player was out of the box when she hit the ball. He wouldnt shut up about it, and even went and tryed to agrue w/ third base umpire about it. Also based on what i know, the foot has to be COMPLETELY out of the box, but her left foot was on the inner line and back foot in the middle of the box, which by LL book, the line is considered in the box. And thats what i told him. But if i woulda had to call it, I wasnt 100% on if the ball was still alive or not, since I couldnt find that part in the book. before the pitcher starts the delivery, we are told to make sure the batter is in the box.

I'd like to see that. Let's start with "Shoeless" Joe.

I would enjoy watching Roberto Clemente again. He could really scoot.

Dan,

Rule 5.09 is one of those rules that a lot of people just glance at; I'd suggest giving it a careful read. There's a lot of important stuff there.

JM

W W U Do
 

Here's the Sitch:

4th inning, Visitors-0 / Home-2, Visitors at bat.
Little Jonny is deep in the box. Too deep but the line has been obscured.
Called time, drew him a line, advised him to stay in or on it but NOT outside of it or I would have to call him out should he contact the ball.

No problem, Jonny adjusts ok.

FF to top of 6th inning, Visitors-0 / Home-4, 2 out and here comes Jonny. I have Ball 1 & 1K F2 and I notice Jonnys back foot is too far back. He's so far back the catcher has to move out of his dig so as not to Interfere.

Called time, drew the line again and re-advise him of where to be.
Immediate next pitch, his back foot is OBVIOUSLY well over the line and he fouls it.

3rd out. Batters Foot Outside Of The Box, Game Over.

Rat shouts "Oh your NOT gonna end the game on THAT call are you?"
Me: "I tried to help the kid with a line twice but he chose to ignore it."
He: "You were looking for it."
Me: "Yep, good night Charlie."


Q: How would you have handled it differently?

"Hard not to look for it coach, since he kept pushing us up against the backstop!":D

Ace, your opinion on this play is not to call it because you can't take the heat from a coach for making a tough (good) call! What other rules don't apply when you are working the dish? :confused:

Gee Ron,
 

You missed the point . . . not surprising.

Regards,

I think you have me wrong here, Ron. I'm saying "don't call it until you are 100% sure." i. e., don't jump into the game unless the players make you do it.

Trust me, I've taken the heat plenty. For over 1,000 games.

Your response seems a tad off base, and a trifle harsh.

Ace

I may have misunderstood you, I apologize if it was harsh.;) ;)

Who actually looks down at the feet when a batter is batting? Sorry, I'm tracking a pitch and that takes precedence over this idiocy.

How many times has a batter in the Major Leagues put his entire foot BEHIND the plate to bunt the ball. Even though the foot is clearly out of the box, how many times have you seen this called?

Problems find me on occasion. I sure don't go looking for them.....or to prove my masterful knowledge of the rule book.

I think I have called it 2 or 3 times in 15 years!

Ok,
 

0 times in 38 years, 3801 games.

Never considered calling it, ever.

Regards,

I had a game earlier this year where we were the visting team. Top of the 1st, I'm coaching 3B, and I notice my batters are getting a fair number of "low strikes" called on them. My standard reaction to this is to tell my batters to move "up" in the box. Only problem is, the front lines of the batter's boxes are about 3 inches in front of home plate.

During the change of half innings, as I'm returning to the 1B dugout, I mention to the PU that I would like to have my batters further forward in the box, but it doesn't look to me like the batter's boxes are properly laid out.

He glances at them and says something along the lines of "I don't think we need to be worrying about that," as he proceeds to erase the front lines with his foot. I thanked him and continued on to the dugout.

I was favorably impressed with the umpire.

JM

Exactly!
 

I agree totally. We have a couple of our HS coaches who like to use this to try and get a call - I guess it must work or they would quit.

Had playoff game this year with them and sure enough once they get behind a run, he starts. Finally a guy rips a double and he comes out and tries to argue he was out of the box.

I listen only for a second, pointing out the line was drawn incorrectly, he wasn't out of the box and then as I moved to brush the plate simply erased the lines.

No further problems etc.,

Thanks
David

Just curious Tim:

Would you call it if the batter bunted the ball with his entire foot on top of home plate, or would you ignore it? I find it hard to believe even you would let this go, or that it has never occurred in 38 years worth of games.

Steve

I'll answer for Tim.

I wouldn't see it. My eyes are tracking a pitch, not looking at feet. If the offense wants to give up an out on a sac bunt, I'm gonna let them do it.

Sds:
 

Rich's answer suffices for my view.

A "better" example for you to ask would have been:

Right handed hitter, and the hit-and-run play is on. F1 pitches out so that the ball is in the left handed batter's box - - -

Batter reaches Waaay across and pokes the ball into right field.

What would you call?

Again, when tracking a pitch I would have no idea if the batter's foot was actually on the ground outside the batter's box -- I do not call what I do not see therefore I would ignore it.

38 years, 3801 games and I have never considered calling this "violation."

Regards,

What if he was bunting for a base hit, was safe at first, but had been obviously completely out of the box with his entire foot on the plate, or worse yet, in the opposite batter's box. You saw it, the defensive manager saw it, the catcher saw it, everyone there saw it.

You are not going to call it?

I didn't want to know about a hit-and-run play that the batter "reaches" for. I wouldn't see his footwork on this play either, nor would anyone else quite frankly. Nor would I care.

I asked specifically about a batter who doesn't know how to bunt properly, who squares around and his back foot is entirely on top of the plate, which is clearly visible in the umpire's peripheral vision. If you saw this, would you call it?

Steve:

The problem here is you are speaking hypothetically..."what if". Tim is speaking factually...he won't see it.

And neither would I.

It's a rule, an especially at the level i do, the coaches are nothing but winey babies. The coach would have a point to make if i wasnt calling it; and it was clear he was way out of the box. Gotta call it i guess :rolleyes:

"I've got more important things to look for, like the pitch. Go back to the dugout."

You let whiny coaches tell you how to officiate?

Sds:
 

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,

No i dont let them. I just try to keep the game fair, and play by the rules. :( But I dont know how you guys stand behind the plate, but i can see the pitch and the batters feet too.

What happens to live runners?

Bob

Somewhere over 1500 games - 0 calls of this kind for me as well.

For those of you that seem to think this is some kind of flaw in an umpire that he's not calling this, let me ask you two questions:

1) at the moment that you see the foot contacting the ground outside the box, where is the pitch? I cannot believe any peripheral vision nonsense, as this is about 45 degrees apart, and one or the other would be in your extreme peripheral vision unless you were actually looking at NEITHER the ball or the foot. Isn't it more important for you to know where the pitch is than the foot?

2) Truly, except for some extremely bizarre circumstance (I don't know, say a slap hitter taking 4 steps toward the pitcher before hitting it), is there any advantage gained by the batter's foot being marginally outside that box?

Note that I am not saying we should intentionally ignore a rule - what I'm saying is that A) it's impossible to do your duties and also see this violation, and B) if you're going to miss one or the other, isn't it better to miss the one for which there is no advantage gained?

At the moment contact is made between ball and bat, the only moment that counts for being out of the batter's box, your full focus is, or should be, solely on the pitch. Saying that you can tell, peripherally, at the exact same time, that the foot is both out of the box and grounded is either incorrect or an indication that you are not performing your primary duty at that time to your fullest potential.

I've been following this thread of discussion, and I've got a question.

Having (re)read J/R and JEA on the question, this strikes me as a legitimate rule which can, in certain situations, have a material impact on the "balance of the game" between offense and defense. Namely, during an IBB, a pitch-out with runners attempting to advance, or a batter (especially LH) attempting to drag bunt for a basehit. So, I'm suggesting that this rule means what it says, and, at least in some situations, really should be called, especially if the violation is "blatant" rather than "borderline".

Now, a number of the distinguished umpires have suggested that they simply would not be able to see this happen, because they are focused on calling the pitch. OK, let's just "buy that" for the time being.

What about if you're a BU in a two-man crew? Wouldn't seem that hard to see if it were blatant and occurred in one of the three situations I mentioned.

What say you?

JM

All of them? Exactly as worded?

As a coach who could be on either side of this call, do you really want me, from 105' away, to exercise my opinion if a foot is grounded at the time of a hit when I am concentrating on the swing and the ball? Really?

Garth,

If it's obvious/blatant and a situation where the offense gains a material advantage (as in the three situations described earlier), I think I WOULD want you to call it were I the defensive manager. Were I the offensive manager in the same situation, I wouldn't WANT you to call it, but you certainly wouldn't hear a peep out of me if you did.

JM

Oh, good. So I only need to take my focus off my job when someone thinks that another call is obvious or blatant. Now we have a rule with attempted enforcement, sometimes. Who decides what is obvious or batant? So what happens when a coach thinks it's obvious or blatant and I don't?

I can see it now. Batter squares to bunt and, in the opinion of a coach, is blatantly out of the box. He, checks his swing.

PU: "Did he go?" BU: "Beats the F*@# out of me, but I think his foot was out of the box."


Just the fact that the other side of this issue has to try so hard to come up with a situation to support their position should tell you something.

PWL,

I don't believe Garth did (call the batter out).

I do believe you missed his point.

JM

And as PU, UIC, and chief trainer for my area, this is the LAST thing I want my BU's to try to be paying attention to.

I don't think I've heard this one before. Okay, I give up, why DO you call the batter out on a check swing?

Because it was two strikes and "Yes, he did!"

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?"

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.

Steve:
 

I don't know how to answer you.

I don't look down at the plate during an at bat.

I don't care where the batter stands before the pitch . . . that reference has no value too me.

In the real world I have worked decades of baseball and never considered calling this situation. I am not good enough of an umpire to properly track a pitch, read everything that happens at the moment of impact betwix bat and ball AND also look down to see a batter's foot.

Not being a reptile with individually functioning eyes I can only do so much at a time.

I cannot answer your question of a hypothetical situation as my games happen in the real world.

I am not trying to be difficult I am simply answering your question.

In a four man crew with crowder, fronheiser, benham and Tee it is impossible to say never, but it would appear to be a cold day in he11 before any of us would call the batter out.

But that is only four of us and none of us were trained in San Diego.

Regards,

How very sad for you.:)

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.

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.

I can't believe ...................................
 

......that Young Dan was not "instructed" to take his post to the softball forum, post haste.

Our hardliners must like the kid.:D





Doug

That play isn't simultaneous with the pitch. It doesn't require concentrating on two different things at the same time. One simply continues to follow the ball. I would have thought you knew that.

Or did you take your shooting lessons from Dick Cheney?

Wow, and with your "Columnist" title and your 3801 games and your 1,500+ posts I'm really kinda disappointed in you.

What would you call? Hmmm. Well, if the batter reaches over and is able to hit the ball without any "violation" then we have a fair ball, if hit to the left of the foul line. It is humanly possible for the batter to do this and have both feet in proper position. This play was on Sportscenter not too long ago. One doesn't have to be a lizard to be able to look down right after impact from the bat hitting the ball and notice if the batter is out of the box. Notice I didn't say at the moment of impact but rather after impact. The batter's momentum will not allow him to instantly correct his "violation".

Maybe you should change "Strikes & Outs" to "Picks & Chooses".

No, but his momentum will allow it to appear he was in violation when he really wasn't.

The rule doesn't say the foot needs to be on the ground "right after impact." Just because it might be on the ground after impact doesn't mean it was on the ground AT impact.

I called this wed night, Batter turns to bunt early, Blocks my view early, then I pick up the ball again the pitch is a good foot outside, batter reaches over and bunts the ball fair, His foot even the print was still there directly behing the point of the plate. With my periferal vision I can see if he moves his leg in a mannor to lift the leg prior to impact (maybe the better vision of the HSM helps - but wait there is no advantage for that) it is a tie game and an attempted SAC. Slower runner on base so the player had to try to hit the ball or the runner is DOA on the play. I Called him out and returned the runner. It was obvious blatent and was a direct violation in an attempt to gain an advantage. I'm soory some of you wouldn't have the nuts to make the right call.

Also had one in HS this season where a kid almost straddled the plate and bunted. When it is rediculously obvious YOU MUST CALL IT. Maybe your lucky and never had one this bad, but I have had 2 this year, probably have seen 1 a seson or every other, but it does happen. And it is not as difficult as you want to make it out.

To add to Garth's advice, in other words, maybe it's one of the reasons you were calling strikes on balls that hit the plate in that other thread.

No, it's not. And, yes, I knew that it wasn't.

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.

It's not "4-10," it's ".410." 4-10 is the dyslexic version of the answer you give Dick Cheney when he asks you if you're all right after he just sprayed you. "10-4 good buddy."

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.

I have games where I pray for it:D

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, an example.
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Not if you're tracking the pitch into the glove using only your eyes. Sorry, but you're either (1) wrong, or (2) not tracking the pitch correctly.

It's not where his foot is when it's pitched. Are you looking at his foot the second the ball is batted. If so, how the heck are you tracking the pitch all the way to F2's glove?

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.

No, Rich, and that's not what I'm getting at. If the batter is standing on the plate when he hits the ball, and his feet are nowhere near the batter's box then he's out of the box. I'm not saying to go out of the way to see it, only when it is blatant and obvious.

Nobody I know goes out of their way to look for something like this, but if an elephant lands on you, you know it.

Rich,

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

JM

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.

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?

I agree with Steve, the couple of times I have called it was on bunts plays like he described. Why would you have to keep tracking a pitch that you know is about 2-3 feet outside? We need to call this infraction "if" we see it. It bothers me when I read that guys will flat out ignore it even if they see it. We won't catch them all that is for sure, but if it is obvious we need to get it! You say you can't do two things at the same instance, then how do you track the pitch and see if the batter checked his swing or if he offered at a bunt?

Because those things usually happen in my frame of vision as I'm tracking the pitch. But I will get blocked out from time to time even then and that's why we have the check swing appeal.

Philosophically speaking: I just don't see why a foot out of the box on a bunt (usually a sac bunt on a bad pitch) is something we should be jumping all over. The offense is giving away an out in the first place. Let them do it. But then again, I'm not seeing it. I don't look down at the feet when I'm working the plate.

Golly,
 

We have another subject that will separate umpires forever.

Add this to:

Does there need to be voluntary release of a gloved ball?

Can a fast ball really "rise"?

Can a pitch be called a strike that bounces before F2 catches it?

Entertainment value only . . .

Regards,

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.

Rich,

You pretty much anticipated what was "bothering me" - thanks for clarifying.

I think I'm beginning to see the light.

For Bob J.,

This is what JEA says:

JM

That sounds good in theory; however, in reality that is simply not possible. The only time I find myself looking at a batters feet is between pitches when a coach has been yelling "he's out of the box".

So between pitches I look at his feet and "he's in the box".

Another reality, especially if you stil do small ball, F2 blocks the umpire most of the time so you have enough problems just finding the ball much less looking at the pitch, looking down at a batters foot and then back for a pitch.

I was PU in a HS playoff game last season when a batter was called for being out of the box, but it was the BU who made the call.

Batter was trying to protect a runner by doing a drag bunt. I couldn't even see the pitch because batter was between myself and the pitcher etc. but once he laid the bunt down, BU called him out.

Probably a very good call, but there is no way I as PU could make that judgement.

Thanks
David

It is not about finding or looking for problems, it is about enforcing the rules of the game. If they didn't want it called it wouldn't be in the rule book! (I am not saying to be a rule book Tommy) Last time I checked that is our job as sports officials to enforce the rules of the game and if we don't enforce this one when we see it we are putting the defense at a disadvantage. If you ignore it on a sac bunt you still are letting the offense put a runner on second with the penalty of an out. If you call it the defense gets the out and the runner is still on first. So that philosophy doesn't hold water. :confused:

Certainly, and it's been scientifically proven!

A pitcher applying vaseline or other similar substances will cause the ball to drop precipitively at about the 59' foot mark.

Similarly, a pitcher applying Viagra or other similar substances will cause the ball to rise. It's basic chemistry.

It's true, it's true.....

:-}
 

JR:

I do not believe I have ever used a "smiley face" before . . .

POTW,

Regards,

Tim, maybe you should smile more?

Nobody has said they will ignore it if they see it. They have said they are very sure they won't see it, because they are doing something far more important - calling the pitch.

~Sigh~
 

"It is not about finding or looking for problems, it is about enforcing the rules of the game."

And therein Ron lies part of the problem.

Baseball, more than other sports, is heavily influenced by not only "common sense and fair play" but by what Evans calls "common usage and tradition."

We call a game with established rules (I consider them "guidelines") that have been influenced by not only decades of play situations but defined information from several sources that impact individual rules codes (i.e. before the recent OBR release there were 237 common erros in the OBR, slowly they are being corrected).

I am not going to sit here and call people names or get over emotional about any baseball rule, "guideline" or play.

I have given my honest and unadulterated opinion about this "mechanic" (not the rule, note we are talking about physical abilities) and the fact will always remain that I have not called this violation nor can I picture a time that I would.

For me (again, my opinion) is that umpiring is not done for "fun" -- it is a serious commitment and a constant effort to umpire a perfect game.

Sorry we can never agree on the play in question . . . but I do ask that you understand that some people review umpiring is a slightly different light than you.

I can understand your position -- can you understand, or respect mine?

Regards,

I do respect your opinion, we can agree to disagree on this topic.

to write it off as well it's a sac bunt, therefore they are giving the out anyway, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the stratagy and the Ideas behind the SAC. The offense GAINS something by having a SAC, they move a runner into Scoring position. In a tie or close game this is a much more importants and crucial play than an attempted Bunt single.

When it happens it is obvious. And easily called, easier than a check swing, and it happens right infront of your face, in your vision. It will only happen on a pitch out or one that got away. As I said before in my instance the ONLY way the kid could have reached the pitch (with out laying out for it) was to be WAY out of the box. He left his FOOT print in the dirt about 6 in behind the point of home plate Toes facing the pitcher. Unless he wears a size 55E shoe, he's out of the box.

And you're SURE the foot is grounded at the moment the pitch hits the bat?

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

http://www.forumspile.com/Spelling-Blackboard.jpg
- hope this helps.....