McCarver's idea of a good call

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

We will duly note that you do not like Tim McCarver.
Feel better?

Actually, I like T-Mac. On the field. All those Catholc boys were hard-nosed mothers. Off the field?

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart.

This begs the question if she was one of those you referred to in your earlier post (#4) above.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

This begs the question if she was one of those you referred to in your earlier post (#4) above.

McCarver banged CBHS cheerleaders girls who were from Catholc HS Immaculate Conception, Sacred Heart and St. Agnes. No girls allowed at The Brothers.

Knowing Laura, she was Episcopalian and not a cheerleader, for 40 plus years, she was and is a class act. Which is why leaving McCarver was a no-brainer.

T-Mac rebounded and married Annie in, oh, mid 60s?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

This begs the question if she was one of those you referred to in your earlier post (#4) above.

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question."

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Tim just said that Laz Diaz' call was a good call since Lugo was out of the batter's box when the bunted ball hit him. Lugo's front foot had yet to touch the ground when the ball bounced off his leg. He should have called it foul, but he called Lugo out for getting hit out of the box. Bad call.

Except that Diaz was right.
Therefore, making McCarver right.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Except that Diaz was right.
Therefore, making McCarver right.

How do you figure he was right? He was still in the box when the ball contacted him, making it a foul ball. You must have at least on the ground outside of the box when contact is made with the body to be an out.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you figure he was right? He was still in the box when the ball contacted him, making it a foul ball. You must have at least on the ground outside of the box when contact is made with the body to be an out.

Because he moved into the ball and was hit in fair territory.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Because he moved into the ball and was hit in fair territory.

In the batter's box, or are you too thick to catch that important piece of information?

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you figure he was right? He was still in the box when the ball contacted him, making it a foul ball. You must have at least on the ground outside of the box when contact is made with the body to be an out.

You are confusing two different rules. To be guilty of an "illegally batted ball," you must have at least one foot on the ground completely outside of the batter's box when the bat contacts the ball. However, this is not a case of the batter hitting the ball while out of the box. This is case of the batted ball hitting the batter while out of the box. Where the batter's feet are is irrelavent when contact is made with the ball. If the contact is outside of the box then the batter is out for interference.

[UMP25]

Richard is correct. If a fair batted ball makes contact with that part of a batter outside of the batter's box, he is out, dead ball, etc. etc. If said contact occurs against that part of a batter still inside the box, the official interp. is that it's simply a foul ball, even if it occurs in that small portion of the box that is technically in fair territory.

Now, here's today's trivia question: What percentage of the box is in fair territory? (Disclaimer: Chris Jaksa went into a fun geometric discussion of this in umpire school lo those many Moons ago.)

[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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by UMP25

n What percentage of the box is in fair territory? (Disclaimer: Chris Jaksa went into a fun geometric discussion of this in umpire school lo those many Moons ago.)

Depends on who lines the boxes. lol

[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!

[UMP25]

I think you're reading into it a bit too much. The ruling is what I mentioned in my preceding post: if the ball contacts that part of his body that is outside the box and in fair territory, he's out on the dead ball; otherwise, it's a foul ball.

[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.