Steve,

Upon a more careful read of the case play, I am compelled to concur with your assertion. As written it actually suggests that if the batter does have one foot "completely outside the box" (as he did in the OP) he would be called out for interference. Which is contrary to what I have been taught as well.

Another example of FED's remarkably poorly written rules, or do they really want it called this way?

JM

IME, the batter has to be so far out of the box Grandma in the 10th row could see he was out to call this.

Let's cut to the chase. Let's say the batter bunts a ball and it dies one foot in front of home plate, directly in front, not in the batters box, in fair territory, one foot in front of the plate. The batter steps on it, or kicks it with one foot while exiting the box, while the other foot is still in the box. What's the call?

I read the parenthetical as defining "in the batter's box." So, if the parenthetical isn't met, then the batter isn't in the batter's box; he must be outside the box.

Not exactly, Rich. I do respect your opinions and what you have to say. I just don't see the need to engage you on this topic.

Bob,

That certainly is what it says. Is it your belief that this is how FED wants this called, or simply a poorly worded case play that does not reflect how this should be called in FED?

JM

Forget FED, how would this call be made in OBR? Refer to my "cut to the chase" example.

DG,

I am quite confident about how this would be properly ruled in an OBR-based game - and that's how I would be inclined to rule.

However, I am now working FED-based games, and I'd just like to know what is proper in that context.

The case play in question suggests that different criteria be used, given the same situation, in ruling on the play.

I don't know if this is just another example of poorly-worded FED documentation, or if they really want it called that way.

I believe that I should call the game according to the rules that the game is being played under - not in a "rulebook lawyer" way, but properly and according to the spirit and intent of the rules. Regardless of my personal opinion as to whether it's a "good" rule, or one authored by someone who has never even seen a baseball game before. If I recall correctly, you hold the same opinion in this regard.

I don't know what is proper in this situation, and I am unsure of the intent of the rule - in FED. I didn't even know I didn't know that until this thread popped up.

So, my question is: Does the FED Case Play really mean what it implies?

JM

This post contradicts your ealier "contrarian" position. Good.

Your goal as expressed here is not at all compatible with your earlier expressed support of sloppy and incorrect mechanics. Around here, at least, the college evaluators are even more nitpicky about performing the expected mechanic correctly. Perception and the expected level of professionalism in college umpiring does not allow for flippant attitudes about doing things "the right way." We have lost a few otherwise good college umpires who didn't consistently demonstrate their understanding of the need to follow the CCA mechanics to the letter.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they just don't care at the college level in Wisconsin. Or that you can turn on and off your "focus on being a solid umpire" depending on the level of game.

So what is the ruling in OBR game, and what is the proper interp to cover it?

I have always ruled a batter out for making contact with a ball in front of the plate while exiting the box and I have never had an argument about it. I don't see how having one foot in the box and the other foot in contact with a batted ball in live ball territory (not in the box part of LBT) in front of the plate is anything but an out.

It depends on what people care about, I suppose.

I care about doing a good job on the field. I don't feel the need to be preachy about minor mechanical deviations off the field. Or on an Internet message board.

In this original situation, I would've fit right in -- I wouldn't have called anything cause I always give my PU partner plenty of time to make the call on his own. There's nothing I hate more than a base umpire quickly letting the world know there was a ball off a batter (and usually echoing the PU for no good reason).

But the BU calling FOUL instead of TIME isn't a reason to make the world stop spinning on its axis. Does the CCA manual actually have that level of detail? Mine's in the car and I'm not going to the garage now to look.

But do I deviate from the crisp college mechanics and mannerisms when I'm working a youth game I assigned with a good friend in the summer. Damn right I do. We talk, laugh, have fun, point out GLMs and MILFs in the stands and all those other things that would seem quite out of place on the college field.

I just saw the perfect example of this in tonight's Padres vs. Rockies game. Jerry Crawford was the PU, and the Rockies batter bunted the ball, the ball ricocheted straight up into him while he had already taken a step out of the box, and nearly had stepped out with his back foot at the time the ball hit him. The call . . . foul, of course.

Making contact with a batted ball while one foot remains in the box has always been called a foul ball. It is not the same thing as batting a ball with one foot out of the box.

Richochet?
 

Bunt hits batter, foul ball. Batter/runner hits bunt, out.
If the ball is rolling on the ground, the batter would not be protected by the batter's box.
The catcher would also have the right to make the play without the interference.
Saw a fine example in Baylor game on Fox Southwest Sports promo yesterday.

I sent an email to Dick Runchy and Kyle McNeely with this question:

"Batter bunts a ball and it is in fair territory directly in front of the plate and as batter is exiting the box, one foot still in the box, he makes contact with the ball that is in front of the plate. The ball is not in the batters box, it is in fair territory in front of the plate.

Foul ball or batter out for contacting a batted ball in LBT?"

Runchy says: "If it happens immediately, call it a foul ball, batter still in the box."

McNeely says: "For it to be a foul ball, the ball must contact the batter while the batter is in the batter's box. Here the contact is made outside the batter's box. The ball is dead and the batter-runner is out."

Runchy is right, and McNeely is reading it in a different context than we were discussing. We are talking about the ball bouncing up into the batter immediately after he bunts it. We aren't talking about him running into the ball which is rolling or simply lying on the ground. You said "he makes contact with the ball." That is not the same as "the ball bounces up and hits the batter-runner as he's leaving the box." Had you worded it that way, I'm pretty sure that McNeely would have responded just as Runchy did.