Batter out of the box...

[SanDiegoSteve]

Yes, it's fuzzy. Yes, it's difficult to detect. Yes, there are more important things to be watching, as tracking the pitch must be the primary focus. But it is certainly not impossible to see blatant violations of being out of the box at the time the ball is hit.

It is rare, and should only be called when it is obvious to everyone, like when the batter actually steps across the plate to hit the ball. In cases like this, it is hard to imagine the batter making contact while his foot is still in the air. I've never seen a batter swing and hit a baseball with his front foot in the air, as his foot is invariably on the ground at the contact point.

So, calls like this are fairly easy to call on the rare occasions that they occur.

Originally Posted by GarthB

Much of the detail of what we think we see with our peripheral vision is incorrect. Watch the ball, do your job. The number or times you "see" the batter with one foot on the ground completely out of the box will diminish greatly.

I don't need to see if his shoe laces are tied, just that I recognize that his foot is out of the batter's box. I am watching the ball and doing my job. If the writers of the rules thought that an umpire could not possibly "see" a batter stepping out of the box and watch the ball and the play, they wouldn't have put the d*** rule in the book. I've already stated I don't go looking for it unless something becomes obvious to me, so why are you being critical?

I'm not the one who wrote the OP. Why don't you jump all over him? All I have tried to do is offer some feedback about how one might catch the infraction, not critique the mechanics. That's what the OP wanted - some feedback. You seem more focused on whether or not I or OP watch the ball as opposed to giving him the feedback he asked for.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

I'm not the one who wrote the OP. Why don't you jump all over him?

How do you know we weren't? Why take it all so personally.

For me, I was not responding to anyone in particular ... just stating that this is REALLY not something that can be seen on a semi-normal pitch. Only the truly abnormal play (reaching across on a pitchout, or a stationary batter bunting) is likely to get this call.

[LMan]

BG, you need to relax. This is all advice on approaching this particular situation. If it doesn't apply to you, don't respond.

[bossman72]

The only time i'll see this is when the batter bunts and his foot is on/behind the plate out of the box, or if the batter lunges at an outside pitch. Those are the only 2 times i quickly glance.

And as others have said, if i'm not 100% on this call, i'm not calling it.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

I don't need to see if his shoe laces are tied, just that I recognize that his foot is out of the batter's box. I am watching the ball and doing my job. If the writers of the rules thought that an umpire could not possibly "see" a batter stepping out of the box and watch the ball and the play, they wouldn't have put the d*** rule in the book. I've already stated I don't go looking for it unless something becomes obvious to me, so why are you being critical?

I'm not the one who wrote the OP. Why don't you jump all over him? All I have tried to do is offer some feedback about how one might catch the infraction, not critique the mechanics. That's what the OP wanted - some feedback. You seem more focused on whether or not I or OP watch the ball as opposed to giving him the feedback he asked for.

Oh, for chrissakes, another one.

list = open
(add) "BigGuy"
list = close

Originally Posted by mcrowder

How do you know we weren't? Why take it all so personally.

For me, I was not responding to anyone in particular ... just stating that this is REALLY not something that can be seen on a semi-normal pitch. Only the truly abnormal play (reaching across on a pitchout, or a stationary batter bunting) is likely to get this call.

I didn't say you were. I'm not taking it personally. However, when one is quoted it usually means the response is directed to that particular person. When people respond to posts, by and large there is a tendency to read more into the post than was originally intended. And I agree with it not being seen on a semi-normal pitch. However, that was never the issue.

The OP asked for advice on how to handle the situation when it comes up, not advice on his technique or what else he should be doing. Below is what OP said.

How do others handle this? Yesterday I called the batter out for being out of the batter's box. Have you warned the batter first? Or not called it at all? Or just called it as it should be called?

I have called this twice now in my relatively short umpiring career and both times the batter happened to hit run scoring singles.

All he wanted was some simple advice with dealing with the situation. The situation involved something he saw - right, wrong or indifferent. He wanted to know how to address it, and not whether his technique was bad. We're not talking about the batter's box line not being there or how high up the batter lifted his leg. We're talking about I SAW A VIOLATION - NOW THAT I'VE SEEN IT HOW DO I ADDRESS IT.

We all know it's not obvious. He had three questions.
1. Should I have warned the batter? YES or NO
2. Should I have not called it at all? YES or NO
3. Should I have called it just the way is supposed to be called? YES or NO

If responders stick to dealing with what the OP wanted and nothing else the thread would have been over long ago. Some are determined that they are going to go off on a tangent, and find something else wrong in the name of giving advice.

It's like me calling my insurance agent saying I was running a little late and I got in an accident when somebody broadsided me going through a red light - what do I do, and him saying 'why were you running late'.

Tell me what I need to know and let me move on. Don't tell me how to build a watch if I ask you what time it is.

[johnnyg08]

I also wouldn't go hunting for this call unless it is very, very blatant. This is a call that just isn't that great of a rule, but they have to have a rule in the book to keep hitters in the box. Any umpire who has any credibility, will tell you to be looking at more important things in a game than where the batter's foot might be...Also, I would wonder how the top of the batter's box was still intact at the end of a game (could happend...but there's a lot of gray area here)...I would worry about other things...you're just going to get yourself in trouble if you keep making that call.

[RPatrino]

If you go 'hunting' for this call, you are probably missing lots of really important calls like balls and strikes. Your shelf life will be quite short.

In reality, you will only make this call if it is extremely obvious to everyone, including you.

[tibear]

The only time I call this is usually when the batter is bunting and the batter turns so early that the ball hasn't even left the pitcher's hand. I then take a quick look down(fraction of a second) to see whether the foot is completely on the plate, if so I then have a potential situation for hitting outside the box.

By doing this, I can see the complete pitch and KNOW where that foot is and whether it was planted or in the air when contact is made. Once the ball leaves the hand of the pitcher, I'm not looking down to look to see where the hitter's feet are.

[David B]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Yes, it's fuzzy. Yes, it's difficult to detect. Yes, there are more important things to be watching, as tracking the pitch must be the primary focus. But it is certainly not impossible to see blatant violations of being out of the box at the time the ball is hit.

It is rare, and should only be called when it is obvious to everyone, like when the batter actually steps across the plate to hit the ball. In cases like this, it is hard to imagine the batter making contact while his foot is still in the air. I've never seen a batter swing and hit a baseball with his front foot in the air, as his foot is invariably on the ground at the contact point.

So, calls like this are fairly easy to call on the rare occasions that they occur.

Reading this post and this is exactly the way I've always been taught to handle this situation.

Its a very very rare call and everyone in the park should know it for you to call it.

Thanks
David

[lawump]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Wouldn't you say if one foot is completely out of the batter's box that it's blatant - or the batter is stepping on home plate?

Stepping on home plate for a bunt is blatant. This is the only time I've ever called a batter out for being out of the box. Specifically, the batter squared around to bunt early...he was clearly standing on the plate...he squared around so early that I had plenty of time to look down and see it AND say to myself, "I'm going to call him out if he bunts this ball," all before the pitch even came.

If a batter is not bunting, but is getting in the box with one foot clearly out of the box, and the catcher makes a comment, I just tell the batter to move a little. (I've done this maybe once in my career...and there was no problem with the batter complying with my request.)

Originally Posted by BigGuy

It's an easy one to ignore, but come tournament time, what are you going to do? Nobody goes looking for them, but what usually happens is that the batter is standing on the inside edge and his natural motion carries him out.

If you can see his "natural motion" carry him out of the box and cause his foot to be on the ground completely outside of the box at the moment (not after) he contacts the ball...then you're a better umpire than me.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

That's when I start to watch.

When? When the ball is on the way and the batter starts his "natural movement" associated with his swing? If so, then I guarantee that you're missing too many pitchers.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Usually you'll catch it on bunt situations.

Agree...I've only ever called one in a bunt situation.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

The thing is you can't not call it if you see it unless you want to claim ignorance of the situation to the opposing coach.

Never once, EVER, had a professional or college coach complain about a batter being out of the box on a swing, PERIOD. There is a reason John Hirshbeck, prior to every one of his plate jobs, wipes out the back line of each batter's box: because nobody wants that rule strictly enforced. You'll get into a craphouse if you do call it on the higher levels.

If an opposing coach ever did come out to complain that a swinging batter was out of the box (which, amazingly, hasn't happened to me, yet) I would first reply with, "coach do you want me watching the pitch or the batter's feet at the moment of the swing?"

If he didn't get the clue after that line, I would then reply with, "fine coach, here's what we're going to do: we're going to enforce every "box rule" today for the rest of the game. None of your coaches are going to leave their coaches' box for any reason or they're done, your catcher must keep his foot in the catcher's box on every pitch and I'll have my eyes glued to your batter's feet every time they're up on each and every pitch."

Trust me: that will end it...he will back off. If it didn't he deserves to be tossed for being stupid, or as Joe Brinkman likes to say "he deserves to be tossed on general principles."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

How about peripheral vision? You always see more than you're seeing directly. It's just a matter of being able to process the two. You can still be watching the ball and catch the batter standing on home plate. If you're staring at your computer screen, is that your complete field of vision? NO, at the same time, even though you're looking at it, you can still see objects to the left, right, up, and down. Same thing.

THere was an article in some referee publication recently that claimed that the peripheral vision narrowed to 3 degrees when an umpire was (properly) tracking a pitch, as compared to the (approximately) 180 degrees it is normally. I haven't tested (duh!) this, but it is rather narrow. So, there are a couple of options:

1) The article is (substantially) wrong.
2) If you're using your peripheral vision to detect this, you're probably not tracking the pitch properly.

On the OP:

1) No official warning, but I have asked the batter if he could see the front line of the box okay.

2) Call it if you're *sure* it happened. It will be obvious

3) It's much more common at lower levels. So, it's not surprising that you've called it twice in your relativley short career. You'll call it less as you move up.