McCarver's idea of a good call

[Forest Ump]

How about the balk call in game one. It was obvious that the pitcher stepped more towards home on the pick off move. Those clowns announcing the game didn't have a clue until they played back the "sounds of the game" when the umpire could be heard explaining the balk call.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

How about the balk call in game one. It was obvious that the pitcher stepped more towards home on the pick off move. Those clowns announcing the game didn't have a clue until they played back the "sounds of the game" when the umpire could be heard explaining the balk call.

Really? I heard them say right away that the umpire must have felt that the pitcher did not step toward first, but McCarver thought he had stepped enough toward first.

Ol' Ed made the proper, gutsy call, while Laz stood there at 1B like a statue in the set position.

[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

[SanDiegoSteve]

After watching the replay a few times, McCarver finally understood what Ted Barrett was doing when he made the out call at the plate on Manny. I knew that Barrett had a tag and was just making sure Torrealba held on to the ball. Great play by Yorvit and great call by Barrett, who McCarver had already started raking over the coals.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

After watching the replay a few times, McCarver finally understood what Ted Barrett was doing when he made the out call at the plate on Manny. I knew that Barrett had a tag and was just making sure Torrealba held on to the ball. Great play by Yorvit and great call by Barrett, who McCarver had already started raking over the coals.

Steve,

Don't give McCarver credit...It was Joe Buck who first realized and then insisted that Barrett had delayed his call to make sure Torrealba had held on to the ball...McCarver then subsequently agreed with Buck.

Not that I like Buck...but in this case if Buck wasn't there, McCarver would still be going on about Barrett having delayed his call because Manny "didn't touch the plate," and how wrong Barrett was, blah, blah, blah.

During live action and the first two replays I thought Barrett had missed it. Then they showed the third replay...Good call!

McCarver is clueless.

[upscout2000]

Fox screwed up and showed 1st sergeant insignia instead of SGM. When referring to Veratek.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by lawump

During live action and the first two replays I thought Barrett had missed it. Then they showed the third replay...Good call.

Same here.

On the live play and the first replay, you couldn't tell if the plate was touched. The sliding runner blocked the view of the plate and the tag.

The next replay showed that Manny's hand definitely got in there, but you couldn't really see the tag.

That third replay- which was from the same perspective the umpire had , looking up the third base line- caught it all. The tag then the touch in rapid-fire succession.

Nice camera work, nice positioning and a nice call!

[PeteBooth]

McCarver was a player so his comments on umpiring need to be taken with a grain of salt.

McCarver should stop, look and listen before he makes his comments.

Before the replay even showed he said it was a bad call because he was looking at Manny's expression. He also doesn't know umpire mechanics. The call was delayed because Torrealba wanted to make certain that F2 held on to the ball which is what he was supposed to do.

That's why I personally liked it when Fox had Steve Palermo in the booth. I do not know why he is not there anymore.

McCarver comments on things too quickly and more often than not he ends up with "egg on his face"

That's why one needs to take comments about umpires from former major leage players with a grain of salt. They are "coming at things" from a different perspective.

Pete Booth

[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.

[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!

[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".