Illegally batted ball... am I the only one...

[Tim C]

"If the batter's back foot is completely on the plate and you claim that "you're tracking the pitch" and not looking on the plate to see the foot. Perhaps you shouldn't be behind the plate. The batter's body is blocking most of the strike zone and you wouldn't notice?????"

Just another reason I get "disappointed" with internet umpires.

I give up.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tibear

If the batter's back foot is completely on the plate and you claim that "you're tracking the pitch" and not looking on the plate to see the foot. Perhaps you shouldn't be behind the plate. The batter's body is blocking most of the strike zone and you wouldn't notice?????

So, you can both see the ball hit the bat and the foot on the ground at the same time? Do your eyes operate independently? Mine don't.

I will admit calling this maybe twice in my career. Both on bunt attempts. One was in front of the plate, about 4 feet out, and the batter was stationary when he hit it - I was sure the feet (both feet in this case) were still on the ground when I saw him hit the ball - but in that case, he was about 6-7 feet from me, so I could see both ball, bat, and feet in my field of vision. The other was a bunt attempt on a pitch out where the batter chased it. He was quite literally in the other batters box, and while I was not absolutely positive which foot was on the ground, it was ugly and blatant enough that NOT calling it would have been unthinkable. There was no way BOTH feet were airborne when he hit it.

But, absent absurd or ridiculous cases like both of these, it is nearly impossible, if you are doing what you are supposed to, to both see ball strike bat and foot touching ground at the same time. If you are calling this on a semi-regular basis, you are probably guessing. And "once or twice a year" is WAY too often, unless you are working in the Ringling Brothers Baseball League.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tibear

Am I missing something or do you guys think home plate is actually inside the batter's box???

I can assure you that I can have half of my size 14 shoe on home plate, and still have my heel in the batter's box. I don't think you're missing anything except your point.

[TussAgee11]

Tibear -

We have had this debate on the previous thread. I tend to agree with you some, I don't notice it really until after the ball is contacted, normally on a bunt. I can normally look down immediately after contact to see where the foot was. Or, if he squares when the pitcher is just starting his motion, or in the set, then I always glance down at the feet quickly.

But again, other umpires on this board will tell you that I'm full of it on this topic and others, so don't trap yourself by pushing this point like I did.

Tuss

[LMan]

Originally Posted by tibear

If the batter's back foot is completely on the plate

The 1 st OP didn't say completely on the plate, its said 'on the black'. In the 2d, I don't know exactly what "1" of heel was still toward (?) the batters box" means but if he meant part of his heel was still touching the line, he's legal.


LIke a lot of other disingenuous posters, you are changing the sitch to suit your argument. Typical.


I do like how Mr Cedar graciously brought us up to date on LL rules, though

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tibear

If the batter's back foot is completely on the plate and you claim that "you're tracking the pitch" and not looking on the plate to see the foot. Perhaps you shouldn't be behind the plate. The batter's body is blocking most of the strike zone and you wouldn't notice?????

If the batter's dumbass body is over the plate and blocks my view of the pitch, I'm gonna ring up a dead ball strike if the ball hits him, since he got hit in the strike zone.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"If the batter's back foot is completely on the plate and you claim that "you're tracking the pitch" and not looking on the plate to see the foot. Perhaps you shouldn't be behind the plate. The batter's body is blocking most of the strike zone and you wouldn't notice?????"

Just another reason I get "disappointed" with internet umpires.

I give up.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Tibear -

We have had this debate on the previous thread. I tend to agree with you some, I don't notice it really until after the ball is contacted, normally on a bunt. I can normally look down immediately after contact to see where the foot was. Or, if he squares when the pitcher is just starting his motion, or in the set, then I always glance down at the feet quickly.

But again, other umpires on this board will tell you that I'm full of it on this topic and others, so don't trap yourself by pushing this point like I did.

Tuss

Normally, when a ball is contacted, I follow the path of the ball. In my area,
when a batter squares to bunt, the catcher rocks up on the balls of his feet, preparing to try to field the ball. When that happens, I certainly am not looking at the batter's feet.
I would rather know if the ball remains fair, and follow the subsequent play,
than worry over the placement of a batter's foot. YMMV.

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by UMP25

It's legal only under OBR. Under NCAA, touching the plate while contacting the ball is, like FED, a no-no.

My mistake - I knew better. It was an editing mistake. I meant to put it after my comment about FED - not OBR. I'll blame it on the time change. My brain is still on Daylight Saving Time.

[DG]

On average, I call it about twice a year. When I see it, it is never a difficult call, whole foot on the plate when contact is made, and almost always a bunt attempt and the foot is planted well before the ball arrives. When the coach comes out for explanation (almost always happens) I say "his foot was on the plate coach, it was an easy call", and they always turn around and go back to the bench.

[Tim C]

"On average, I call it about twice a year . . ."

As Carl is known to say:

"Amazing"

Regards,

[DG]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"On average, I call it about twice a year . . ."

As Carl is known to say:

"Amazing"

Regards,

What's amazing about it? It's one of the easier plays to see clearly.

[TussAgee11]

T -

Honestly, especially with lesser competitive ball, like rec leagues, it happens quite often.

LL i'd imagine it happens ALOT

Tuss

[tibear]

Originally Posted by LMan

The 1 st OP didn't say completely on the plate, its said 'on the black'. In the 2d, I don't know exactly what "1" of heel was still toward (?) the batters box" means but if he meant part of his heel was still touching the line, he's legal.


LIke a lot of other disingenuous posters, you are changing the sitch to suit your argument. Typical.


I do like how Mr Cedar graciously brought us up to date on LL rules, though

The thread had obviously changed to discuss rule 6.06 a which is what I was talking about.

Obviously, unless you are 100% certain that a batter's foot is COMPLETELY outside the batter's box you're not going to call this.

The only time I can really enforce this rule is when the batter is bunting and has turned before the pitcher's windup or just as he starts. I can see the batter blocking most of the strike zone and immediately take a quick glance down to check the foot. If he's completely on the plate, then if contact is made he's out. I can tell if he had shifted again to move his foot back but most times if his foot is on the plate when I first glance, he doesn't move it until he contacts the ball.

And if he did lift it 2 millimeters off the ground just before contact, tough for him he shouldn't have had his foot out of the box to begin with.

My two cents. Never had an arguement, maybe a quick question but never more then 5 seconds of dicussion.

Others can ignore what they want but I'll stick to enforcing the rulebook.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tibear

And if he did lift it 2 millimeters off the ground just before contact, tough for him he shouldn't have had his foot out of the box to begin with.

Translation - even if the player did legally hit the ball, I'm going to enforce my own unwritten rule and call him out because he has angered the Umpire God by his previous actions of having his foot on the ground out of the box (which I noticed BEFORE the ball hit the bat because I was not doing my job)

Others can ignore what they want but I'll stick to enforcing the rulebook.

How can you blatantly tell us you are going to enforce your own set of right vs wrong, despite what the rulebook says, and then make this last statement in the same post.

I agree with Tee, who quoted Carl. Amazing.