Bunt hits batter!!!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

The benefits TO ME are:

I work with college level umpires every time I walk on the field. Not only are they top umpires, they are my friends. They have my back and we have a great time umpiring together. Then we have dinner and a beer or six afterwards.

The negative FOR ME is:

(Crickets chirping)

As far as the state of umpiring in Wisconsin or the quality of the umpires schools get in games when I don't work or the quality of other umpires, I have to be honest and say I don't really give a damn.

And I would say that is one of the negatives.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

And I would say that is one of the negatives.

So be it. But understand it took me 5 years of banging my head off brick walls to come to that conclusion.

[GarthB]

That's too bad, Rich.

When we tire of working to help others improve, we tend to soon tire of working to improve ourselves. Isolation may further that issue.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's too bad, Rich.

When we tire of working to help others improve, we tend to soon tire of working to improve ourselves. Isolation may further that issue.

Actually, my energy in that area is given to the local Little Leagues and the district where I am on the staff as the financial officer. I was a clinician last month and will be the lead clinician at another clinic later this month.

Also, I am motivated by other things myself. I am building up a bigger D3 college schedule and have decided to work less high school games going forward. I'll still work the number required to stay eligible, but I'm in no hurry to pick up every game I can, like I used to be.

Working more college dates requires me to keep focus on being a solid umpire, especially on the plate, and also continue to work hard year after year.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Define what constitute being in the batter's box.

Within the lines if they are still visible. If not, what the umpire determines the batter's box should be. As long as at least one foot is still in the box

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Any coach that does that is a moron that deserves to get run. I've never seen it happen, either. It's one of those little warnings we like to give to umpires to rally behind the correct mechanic, but it's really a non-issue.

The fact of the matter is that (assuming FED) a coach would be justified for complaining that the PU can't call the batter out after BU has called foul ball, and he would be right because the ball became dead at the instant BU made the call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

The fact of the matter is that (assuming FED) a coach would be justified for complaining that the PU can't call the batter out after BU has called foul ball, and he would be right because the ball became dead at the instant BU made the call.

The ball became dead when the runner ran into it, by rule.

Just cause the base umpire says FOUL instead of TIME doesn't mean the plate umpire can't correctly apply interference. FOUL makes the ball dead in a FED game. So does TIME, BTW.

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

The ball became dead when the runner ran into it, by rule.

Just cause the base umpire says FOUL instead of TIME doesn't mean the plate umpire can't correctly apply interference. FOUL makes the ball dead in a FED game. So does TIME, BTW.

Sorry to differ - once the play is ruled "foul" for the reason that contact was made while the batter was in the batter's box, it became a judgment call, not subject to being overturned unless the BU calls for assistence, even if said in error, the ruling of foul has to stand as if the ruling was inadvertant.

The fact is it can't be foul and interference at the same time and it can't be foul, then interference. Until BU asks for help the only call that stands is FOUL.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Sorry to differ - once the play is ruled "foul" for the reason that contact was made while the batter was in the batter's box, it became a judgment call, not subject to being overturned unless the BU calls for assistence, even if said in error, the ruling of foul has to stand as if the ruling was inadvertant.

The fact is it can't be foul and interference at the same time and it can't be foul, then interference. Until BU asks for help the only call that stands is FOUL.

So when the plate umpire and the base umpire simultaneously make a call you're saying the base umpire's call (which is not his to make) takes precedence?

OK, do what you wish in your world. I'll do it the way that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

So when the plate umpire and the base umpire simultaneously make a call you're saying the base umpire's call (which is not his to make) takes precedence?

OK, do what you wish in your world. I'll do it the way that makes sense.

If it's "simultaneously", I go with the PU, but I'm sure they're going to talk about it then and I'm also sure after the game when PU chews out BU a$$ for making his call. Bad mechanics on the part of the BU contribute to this as I'm sure you agree. The only question for BU is how long do I wait before I call foul?

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your thought process. The BU make problems by making a call maybe he shouldn't have. The PU maybe takes too long in trying to signal interference. There is one other factor to consider. Maybe how the play developed, and on one can tell for sure, that the BU had a better view of the batter relative to the batter's box than PU. It's probably one of those plays you HTBT.

[WayneG]

Thanks for the replies but it I guess I wasn't specific enough in what I was asking.

I was the plate umpire. When the ball hit in front of the plate and came straight up, I saw the batter-runner run into the ball. When I saw contact I called foul to kill the play. I wasn't sure if the player had stepped out of the box when contact was made. I asked for my partners assistance to determine if he had indeed stepped out before contact was made. He basically said he had at least one foot out when contact was made. He as the BU was not overrulling me but assisting me in making my judgement. I changed my call.

The main question I have is, where does it say that both feet must be out of the box before the runner is considered out of the box? When hitting, only one foot is required to be completely out of the box to be called out when striking the ball. Is there a different standard as a runner? It's probably addressed in the case book but I lent mine to a partner umpire so I can't look it up. I can't find the standard in the rule book. Thanks for everyone's feedback.

[UmpJM]

Wayne,

I'm inferring from the OP that this is a FED game, yes?

If so, Case Play 8.4.1B does the trick for me.

JM

Originally Posted by WayneG

Thanks for the replies but it I guess I wasn't specific enough in what I was asking.

I was the plate umpire. When the ball hit in front of the plate and came straight up, I saw the batter-runner run into the ball. When I saw contact I called foul to kill the play. I wasn't sure if the player had stepped out of the box when contact was made. I asked for my partners assistance to determine if he had indeed stepped out before contact was made. He basically said he had at least one foot out when contact was made. He as the BU was not overrulling me but assisting me in making my judgement. I changed my call.

The main question I have is, where does it say that both feet must be out of the box before the runner is considered out of the box? When hitting, only one foot is required to be completely out of the box to be called out when striking the ball. Is there a different standard as a runner? It's probably addressed in the case book but I lent mine to a partner umpire so I can't look it up. I can't find the standard in the rule book. Thanks for everyone's feedback.

It doesn't - as long as he has one foot IN THE BOX, he is considered to be IN THE BOX. The only exception would be if the batter HIT THE BALL with one foot COMPLETELY outside of the box, by definition.

[shickenbottom]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread and interpretation

There are two types of rule interps that may have been used in the situation that has been bantered about.

1) If the batter has one foot completely outside the box and hits the ball, the ball is dead, the batter is out - Illegally batted ball.

2) The ball was bunted and the batter was in the process of exiting the batters box (one foot in the box, one foot out). The ball is dead, and general concensus and interpretation treast this as a foul ball. This is generally unintentional as the batter is trying to move out of the box and the ball come up from the ground almost immediatly.

It sounds like the umpires confused and mingled their interpretations. Both require judgement. The problem came about because it was initially ruled foul, then changed to illegally batted ball after a discussion between the officials.

From a mechanics standpoint, if the field umpire is sure of thier call, they can and should make the foul call from out in the field. This generally occurs when the UIC may be screened from the action because of the batter & catcher moving into the UIC line of sight.

The illegally batted ball should belong to the plate umpire, because the field umpire has a reduced to almost non-existent perspective on where the batters feet are with respect to the batters box and the moment the ball is hit.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Wayne,

I'm inferring from the OP that this is a FED game, yes?

If so, Case Play 8.4.1B does the trick for me.

JM

8.4.1B does nothing to help me on this because in parenthesis it says "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box." Of course, with "no foot outside," it is a foul ball. This does not directly address the situation we have, in that the batter has one foot entirely outside of the box. There should be a definitive case play for this example as well, which is absent in this case.

I have always been taught that if the batter still has one foot in the box, then this is ruled a foul ball. Short of any official interpretation to the contrary, I must go with the call of "Foul."