McCarver's idea of a good call

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BretMan

This one comes up from time-to-time and the play in question is being kicked around on several forums.

We have rules that clearly define when a batter is considered "in the box" prior to a pitch.

There are rules covering a batter being "in the box" when contacting a pitch with the bat.

But there isn't a rule that specifically defines what constitutes being "in the box" for a batter being contacted by his own batted ball.

A batter being contacted by his own batted ball while still being "in the box" is regarded as a foul ball- and he could be anywhere "in the box", despite McCarver's attempt to delineate a "fair" and "foul" portion of the box, which really doesn't apply on this play.

So what interpretation covers this? If the batter still has one foot in the box is he still regarded as being "in the box"? Does he need to have both feet in the box? Are the feet disregarded and the contact judged by any portion of the batter's body extending out beyond the boundary lines of the batter's box?

I'm guessing this is one of those interpretations covered by the professional umpire's manual- the one that I don't have any access to!

Forget the box.

Take a runner coming down the third base line who gets hit by a batted ball. What determines if he is out or not...the position of one foot, or the position of the ball and body part when he is hit?

I don't have access to additional replays this morning, but as I remember the event at the time, contact was made in front of the plate, not in the "fair" portion of the batter's box.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Now, here's today's trivia question: What percentage of the box is in fair territory?

A batter's box is 48" by 72" which is an area of 3,456 sq. in. Home plate is 6 inches from the edge of the box. The edge of the foul ine that determines the terminus of fair territory cuts a 45° angle across the box. The foul line cuts off a equilateral triangle from the corner of the box where each leg is 30" long. Doing the math, the area of that small triangle is 450 sq. in. The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

[greymule]

The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

I'll take your word for it, but only in a Euclidean universe. And you meant isosceles triangle, didn't you?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by greymule

The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

I'll take your word for it, but only in a Euclidean universe. And you meant isosceles triangle, didn't you?

Since an equilateral triangle has equal sides and equal angles, and considering one of the angles in the "fair" triangle is 90 degrees and no triangle has 270 degrees, I'd guess he'd have to meant an isosceles triangle.

[SanDiegoSteve]

What I'm arguing, and what I'm sure Francona was arguing, is that Lugo was still in the batter's box when the ball contacted him. He had not yet left the box. He had started to leave the box, as the ball hit him while his left foot was in mid-air on its first step. Still in the box. Hadn't yet left box. Not yet out of batters box. If a ball bounces up and hits the runner before he has left the batter's box, how is he out?

I thought we discussed this at length and determined that to call the batter out on this was OOO. If the batter had already left the box, I could understand calling him out, but he had not even taken a step yet.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What I'm arguing, and what I'm sure Francona was arguing, is that Lugo was still in the batter's box when the ball contacted him. He had not yet left the box. He had started to leave the box, as the ball hit him while his left foot was in mid-air on its first step. Still in the box. Hadn't yet left box. Not yet out of batters box. If a ball bounces up and hits the runner before he has left the batter's box, how is he out?

I thought we discussed this at length and determined that to call the batter out on this was OOO. If the batter had already left the box, I could understand calling him out, but he had not even taken a step yet.

Steve, I believe that has to be tempered with where the contact took place. If the contact was clearly, as I remember in this case, in front of the plate, I believe MLB umpires are going to call the out, whether or not his foot as yet touched the ground.

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by greymule

The ratio of the "fair" part of the batter's box would be 450/3456 which gives us a percentage of 13.02% of the batter's box is in fair territory.

I'll take your word for it, but only in a Euclidean universe. And you meant isosceles triangle, didn't you?

Yes, isosceles trangle. I was a geometry teacher in the 80's. I should have caught that one.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Forget the box.

Take a runner coming down the third base line who gets hit by a batted ball. What determines if he is out or not...the position of one foot, or the position of the ball and body part when he is hit?

But if we "forget the box" we won't be able to make any sensible call on this play!

Being struck while either in or out of the box is what determines the difference between a foul ball and the batter being called out. So we had best not forget about it.

In your analogy, the fair or foul status of the ball as it hits the runner is clearly defined by rule and that rule can be verified by anybody with a rule book.

A batter being struck by his own batted ball while still in the batter's box is covered by interpretation- an interpretation that conflicts with other written rules and appears in materials not readily available to the general public.

Other posters have stated that they have the "official interpretation". I suppose that "because I said so" might fly, but let's pretend I'm from Missouri.

Show me!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Steve, I believe that has to be tempered with where the contact took place. If the contact was clearly, as I remember in this case, in front of the plate, I believe MLB umpires are going to call the out, whether or not his foot as yet touched the ground.

Ok, that makes sense when you put it that way. I would probably have a hard time selling that to a HS coach, however.

[greymule]

I'm guessing this is one of those interpretations covered by the professional umpire's manual- the one that I don't have any access to!

I don't see it in there. However:

J/R: "If a batter chops a ball toward the dirt or the plate and it immediately strikes or comes up and strikes the batter, or his bat, it is a foul ball only and not interference. This usually occurs while the ball is over foul territory, but can occur over fair territory."

"It is not interference if [the batter's] batted ball bounces and immediately comes up and hits the bat a second time while the batter is still in the batter's box (foul ball)." [2002 BRD: "The same rule would apply to a batted ball hitting the batter."]

Evans gives some history and acknowledges the problem but seems to say that the safest call is foul: "Professional umpires try to scrutinize the exact feet location when a drag bunt is attempted. In most all [sic] other situations in which the batter is hit with his fair batted ball, the ball is ruled 'foul' if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box."

[Emphasis is mine.]

Perhaps the best way to call it is similar to "ball hits bat" versus "bat hits ball." If the ball bounces up sharply and hits the batter over fair territory before a foot is out of the box, then call it foul. If the batter's foot, not yet on the ground, hits the ball over fair territory, then call the out, with benefit of the doubt going to the batter.

Richard, you might be interested to know that a co-worker recently finished his Ph.D. at Penn, his thesis being on what educational factors are key to success. The single most important course was geometry. (Now whether studying geometry leads to success or people who are going to be successful take geometry is another question, but geometry was the key marker.)

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BretMan

But if we "forget the box" we won't be able to make any sensible call on this play!

Being struck while either in or out of the box is what determines the difference between a foul ball and the batter being called out. So we had best not forget about it.

I probably should not have assumed that you knew I was making an analogy by saying, "forget the box." My error.

... the fair or foul status of the (batted )ball as it hits the runner is clearly defined by rule and that rule can be verified by anybody with a rule book.

Excellent. You're almost there. Read the rule again.

[BretMan]

I could read the rules again...and again...and again...but that would not change the fact that, in regards to the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there exists an interpretation that proves to be the exception to the rule.

There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play.

I understand the analogy you were trying to make, but that analogy takes the leap of faith of equating a foul line with the batter's box lines and a batter who has just hit the ball with a runner already on base. There are rules and interpretations that clearly make distictions and exceptions between these conditions.

I have the J/R manual and had read the quoted passage before posting. I have also seen the Evan's interpretation before and that is what led me to believe this play should have been ruled as a foul ball.

As the Evan's interpretation says, "the ball is ruled foul if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box".

What I was looking for was something published in black and white- as opposed to something interpolated from other unrelated rules- that gives a clear definition of the phrase "within the confines of the batter's box".

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I could read the rules again...and again...and again...but that would not change the fact that, in regards to the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there exists an interpretation that proves to be the exception to the rule.

There is no rule in the professional rule book or OBR that addresses the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there is no rule about it! (FED addresses it, but not the OBR)

We only have the unofficial interps from J/R, JEA, BRD, to go on. I don't recall what or if the PBUC manual might say about it. I'm sure somebody out there will check.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

There is no rule in the professional rule book or OBR that addresses the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there is no rule about it!

Exactly true and it wasn't implying that there is.

Which fits right in with the next sentence from that post: "There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play."

What I was refering to in the part you quoted is that there are rules about runners being struck by fair batted balls, but there are exceptions to these rules offered by interpretation (ie: the exception of the batter still being within the batter's box).

I take it that the rules Garth is encouraging me to read are the unrelated rules from which he is drawing his analogy- but that is just my guess.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

Yes, isosceles trangle. I was a geometry teacher in the 80's. I should have caught that one.

Not only that, but an isosceles right triangle (which is even easier).

Welcome to the board, Richard, nice to have you here.