Bunt hits batter!!!
 

Had this situation in a C-team game the other night. R1, batter attempts bunt, ball strikes in front of plate, comes straight up and hits batter-runner as he's leaving the box. I immediately call foul ball. Head coach of defensive team comes out to challenge the call. I immediately give him the stop sign to wait as I feel that I need to ask for help from my partner help. I ask my partner and he tells me that the batter was half in-half out of the batters box. With this information, I change my call to batter-runner out. Now I have the other head coach coming out, I tell him that the batter was hit out of the box and says that there is no way my partner can help with this call because of his location. "B" position. After the half inning, his assistant, who claims to also be an umpire where he lives, claims that there is a little rule that states that as long as the batter still has one foot in the batters box, he is considered to still be in foul territory, making it a foul ball. I don't agree with that, couldn't find it in the Fed. rule book. Just looking for some insight from y'all. Thanks.

Half in half out to me means he had one foot in the box when the bunted ball bounced up and touched him. One foot in equals foul ball.

1/2 in 1/2 out - you don't need a rule book for that! FOUL BALL!

FED 8.4.1B could be read to imply that if the batter has one foot out of the box, the batter is out of the box.

Generally speaking, when the batter is hit with the ball in this manner and he is partially in the box, you call it foul.

You can really save yourself a lot of grief by calling foul ball. If the batter is partly in the box just call foul. Unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure he is out of the box, then call him out. As far as my partner, I tell him during pregame if you see it hit him and are sure come up yelling foul.

By rule it is where the ball is when it hits him. If the ball is in fair territory, he's out. By tradition, any ball striking the batter who is still in the box is foul.

WRONG - Try 7-2-1f

SECTION 2 STRIKES, BALLS AND HITS
ART. 1... A strike is charged to the batter when:

f. a batted ball contacts the batter in the batter's box (foul ball).

Define what constitute being in the batter's box.

If the BU sees the B/R get hit with the a batted ball he should call "time". You'd have a lot of explaining to do if he called "foul" as you were declaring the B/R out for being hit with a fair ball.

Part of the front corner of each box is in fair territory so if he is struck in the box it is foul, even if the ball was in that front corner in fair territory. If he is struck by a batted ball that is in front of the plate and either foot is on the ground outside the box as it would likely be if he is trying to run to 1B and I have an out. If he inadvertently kicks a fair ball in front of the plate while coming out of the box I have an out. Contact was made with a fair ball while not in the box. If he had one foot out of the box on the ground when he bunted the ball he would be out so I don't see why he wouldn't be out if contact is made with a fair ball that is in front of the plate with one foot in and one foot out.

Maybe I should have clarified that if I have not come up with anything yet on the play and BU sees it to call it.

Why? You called foul ball. The play is dead, and you can't change it.

I say he is in the box until he is completly out of the box. Foul Ball.

Thank you.

This is all overrated. If I call "foul" from the bases, plate umpire steps up and says, "no, no, no, he was out of the box, he's out" there's really precious little to explain, really.

Even less when it's done correctly.

That wasn't my point.

Name one coach (that isn't a complete rat or a moron) that's going to come out and say: "No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL instead of TIME."

It ain't no big deal. The base guy should keep his mouth shut until he's sure the plate guy isn't killing it anyway.

What will happen is a coach will say ""No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL." And, after a bit, someone gets ejected.

Sorry. I haven't yet gotten to the stage where I can advocate an incorrect mechanic because "there's precious little" to explain to fix it. I find doing it correctly reduces explanations and minimizes the risk of error.

Except, if you're playing FED rules once it's called Foul it remains Foul. Whoops. :eek:

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.

I've stopped acting like umpiring is as serious as brain surgery. I'd have no problem calling batter interference in any level ball even if my base umpire partner called out "foul." Of course, I do just about everything by the book, so maybe I'm the wrong person to say, "Hey, lighten up" to anyone.

(Hell, I saw Ed Montague give two fists for a full count on Monday while wearing a penis hat. We amatoores would have a great time with a local Jim-Bob doing that.)

It does not. It remains DEAD. It can't go from FOUL to FAIR once called foul. But I can sure turn it into an out, especially since the ball is still dead.

To each his own. Maybe it's the teacher in me, maybe it's the evaluator in me, but I'm not ready to get sloppy when working with others on mechanics. One doesn't raise the bar by lowering expectations.

It doesn't matter to me how you umpire, Rich. I'll still work as I was trained, and train and evaluate others as correctly as I can. Again, I find working correctly results in fewer problems. I don't like problems.

Correct.

I believe that Wayne was mistaking the bunted ball coming up and hitting the batter while one foot was out of the box, with hitting the ball with one foot outside the box, which would be an out if it was obvious enough to call. It is the only explanation that makes any sense other than he just didn't know the rule.

Rich, it's not worth the argument. Do as you wish.

Reference, please. I'm not doubting you, but it's contrary to how I read the FED case play.

I guess your signature applies to me, then.

Correct is in the eye of the beholder, Garth. I'm more interested in how the umpires handle situations like this rather than whether the base umpire says "FOUL" or "TIME." The right way to handle this is for the base umpire to hesitate and give the plate umpire a chance to make this call himself.

Of course, I see a LOT of umpires come up with a call as soon as the ball hits the batter. Who cares if the call is FOUL or TIME when there shouldn't be one in the first place?

It's a package, Rich. If one can perform part of it correctly, they can perform all of it correctly.

This difference, I believe, is partly due to the different ways Washington and Wisconsin handle officiating. Here, I am part of an association responsible for both myself and those I train. We work with different partners at all levels, including college. Uniformity and predicability are important when working in this manner. The best way to attain that, I believe, is consistent training and performance of uniform mechanics.

It's my understanding that in Wisconsin you do not belong to an association and can work with the same crew, or at least a minimum number of different partners, for an entire season. You contact schools directly and market yourself rather than an association. You are far more independent and enjoy the benefits of that. I believe there are negatives as well.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

McNeely's ruling seems consistent with the wording in the FED case book.

But for game-management purpose, I consider Runchy gave the better answer. If it happens immediately, 'foul' is the expected call.

Well, after rephrasing the question to a bouncing ball instead of one just laying there, I just got another response that says one foot in is still in so I am confused. Still waiting to hear from Roder.

Maybe Carl needs to sort this out for the 2008 BRD.

The issue is perception. With a batted ball laying on the ground clearly in fair territory, and the batter steps on it, kicks it, or otherwise contacts it as he's leaving the batter's box, you're faced with one of those "who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes" situations if you try to force a foul ball call. The ball was PLAINLY in fair territory because it was on the ground where it's obvious.

When the ball is airborne when it contacts the batter who is leaving the box, then the reality is much more judgmental and tenuous, and professional interpretation guides us to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter. It's the non-sticky end of the stick.

Where the ball is when the contact occurs - on the ground or in the air - is key to this call, and is, I believe, the reason for contradictory answers from the authorities that have been queried.

I also think there's a difference between a batter contacting a motionless ball, and a batter being contacted by a moving ball.

Roder says FOUL. Runchey says FOUL. McNeely says FOUL after rephrasing the question (motionless vs. bouncing). None of the FED coaches have read the case book, or the rule book for that matter. I am a convert on this subject. One foot in the box, he is still in the box. I got it....