McCarver's idea of a good call
 

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.

And while I've got a harangue, Joe Buck must know better than to call a foul ball a foul tip. Tonight he said, "That's a foul tip" when the batter fouled the ball off the edge of the catcher's mitt to the ground. I don't mind when they say "foul tipped in and out of the glove" or something similar, but to come right out and declare it to be a "foul tip" when it's not is just an unacceptable practice.

Why couldn't Buck just call it a foul ball, or explain what a foul tip really is? I'm sure he knows better. He could actually educate the uneducated fans out there instead of perpetuating their ignorance of the rules.

more mccarver...in one word he continued to show how much of a moron he is.

"changeup"

after okajima threw a nice 11-5 sweeping curve.

good work, tim.

Is this a kind of passion, to point out that T-Mac is an idiot? Fish-barrel-shoot? He's a self-absorbed slobbolla and has been since hde was banging cheerleaders at CBHS.

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

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. :D

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.

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

He can't read Matsuzaka's pitches either. Threw a nifty 87 mph slider in the ALCS. McCarver: "That's a wicked changeup!"

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.

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.)

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!

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.