Indians v Twins tonight

[Dakota]

This from the Indians wrap by the MLB writer:

Singles from Travis Hafner and Trevor Crowe put runners on the corners with one out. Jason Donald put down a squeeze bunt that hit off his right hand. The ball bounced in the dirt and grazed Donald's left arm after he had run outside the batter's box. So although Hafner streaked home on the play, he was forced to return to third as Donald was ruled out on batter's interference.

I didn't see the game, but this explanation does not sound correct.

[Dakota]

Video of the play...

Top Plays | MIN@CLE: Donald is ruled out on a sacrifice bunt - Video | indians.com: Multimedia

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This from the Indians wrap by the MLB writer:
I didn't see the game, but this explanation does not sound correct.

Didn't see the vid, but you might be thinking of 7.07 concerning batter int. Once the ball is hit, that rule is no longer applied. In this case, we have int by the batter runner. Dead ball, batter out, runners return.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This from the Indians wrap by the MLB writer:
I didn't see the game, but this explanation does not sound correct.

Good catch! The batted ball struck his right hand.

Donald seemed to be still in the box when the batted ball hit his hand. He hadn't taken a step with his left foot yet. I'm surprised they ruled an out here rather than a foul ball.

[txump81]

Explanation in the OP makes it sound like it should have been HBP. It is not correct.

It was a great call by the HP umpire. The ball was bunted by the batter and as the batter left the box, the ball bounced up and hit his right hand before he dropped the bat. I didn't see it until I saw it on MLB network in slo-mo. I could see BR remove his right hand and shake it as if being hit. I first thought it was on the pitch. If he doesn't do that, probably no call.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by txump81

It was a great call by the HP umpire.

I'm not sure of that. It looks to me as though the batted ball hit the batter before he left the box (neither foot was yet on the gorund outside the batter's box.

That said, in real-time it was a much tougher call.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Donald seemed to be still in the box when the batted ball hit his hand. He hadn't taken a step with his left foot yet. I'm surprised they ruled an out here rather than a foul ball.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It looks to me as though the batted ball hit the batter before he left the box (neither foot was yet on the gorund outside the batter's box.

That said, in real-time it was a much tougher call.

Agreed.

1) The ump really sold it though didn't he?

2) I thought it took Manny Acta quite a while before he came out of the dugout. Not that it would have affected the play/call. But, it happened pretty quickly and he shoulda bounded outa there.....IMO

[dash_riprock]

Looks like the pitch hit him on the hand (the batter's reaction is strong evidence of this). Dead ball, and a strike on the bunt attempt.

That said, I agree with Bob - very tough call in real time.

[LeeBallanfant]

Also of note is that Gorman (HP Umpire) could get no help from 1B umpire as there were only three umpires at game and 1B umpire was in middle of diamond. Angel Campos scheduled as HP Umpire had his appendix removed.

Gorman made a great sale of that call. I think Acta only came out to get Donald out of there.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Looks like the pitch hit him on the hand (the batter's reaction is strong evidence of this). Dead ball, and a strike on the bunt attempt.

That said, I agree with Bob - very tough call in real time.

What I thought seeing the video.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Also of note is that Gorman (HP Umpire) could get no help from 1B umpire as there were only three umpires at game and 1B umpire was in middle of diamond. Angel Campos scheduled as HP Umpire had his appendix removed.

Gorman made a great sale of that call. I think Acta only came out to get Donald out of there.

The runners were at first and third. U1 was on the line, not in the middle.

[BretMan]

A tough call indeed. It's one of those that is so quick you could blink and miss it. Not that your view will be all that great anyhow. You need to see two separate elements- the batter's feet and the ball hitting him- and your view is often blocked by the batter himself.

Isn't that why this is one of those calls you should only make if you are 100% sure you saw it? Otherwise, give the benefit of the doubt to the batter and call the foul ball instead of the out.

With the advantage of multiple replays and stop-action video, it looks as if the ball hit the batter while his left foot was on the ground, inside the box, and his right foot was in the air, still over the area of the box. The right foot didn't land on the ground outside the box until after the batter was already hit. That's a foul ball!

On a related side note, this play does kind of tie in with the OBR rule change/clarification that was added this year. The exact point that a batter should be considered "out of the box" after hitting the ball was always vaguely defined. Was it when one foot was out and on the ground? When he had fully exited the box? Give the batter the benfeit of the doubt and call it foul?

This year, wording was added to 6.05(g) to clarify this. The rule now reads that if his fair batted ball touches him while he is in a legal position in the batter's box it is a foul ball. The rule refers to 6.03 to define the batter's "legal position".

While it's nice that OBR now better defines this, in my opinion they picked a bad definition. Rule 6.03 is the rule that defines the batter's legal position in the box prior to the pitch- ie: both feet entirely within the box, with no portion of the foot extending beyond the lines.

A batter may, of course, legally hit the ball with a foot partially out of the box but still touching the lines, as described in rule 6.06(a). So, if the batter legally hits the ball with, say, his heel touching the line and the rest of his foot on the ground outside the box, for the purpose of legally batting the ball he is considered to be "in the box". But if he doesn't budge from that position, and the ball ricochets up off the ground and hits him, by rule he is now considered to be "out of the box" the instant the ball touches him.

It just seems incongruent that the batter can now be considered "in the box" (when hitting the ball) then be "out of the box" (when the ball hits him) an instant later without ever changing his position.

It would have seemed more consistent to consider a batter "out of the box" the same as "out of the box" is defined when hitting the ball- a foot entirely on the ground outside the lines, rather than by his legal position before receiving the pitch.

[BK47]

Great Point BretMan. I wonder if MLB put the new wording in to intice players a little. Saying "Go ahead, place a foot on the line and the rest of your foot out of the box, thats ok. *wink~wink* But keep in mind if you do this we are going to call you out once the ball bounces back up and hits you." Maybe in a round~about way to "teach" the players a lesson to make them keep the feet all of the way in the box and not try to "leagally cheat" by have at least some portion of the foot on the line and the rest out of the box?

Just a thought.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by BK47

Great Point BretMan. I wonder if MLB put the new wording in to intice players a little. Saying "Go ahead, place a foot on the line and the rest of your foot out of the box, thats ok. *wink~wink* But keep in mind if you do this we are going to call you out once the ball bounces back up and hits you." Maybe in a round~about way to "teach" the players a lesson to make them keep the feet all of the way in the box and not try to "leagally cheat" by have at least some portion of the foot on the line and the rest out of the box?

Just a thought.

Do you really believe that the players are going to put that much thought into this for something that MIGHT happen and "It's one of those that is so quick you could blink and miss it" situations.

I will agree with Brett's techincal analysis about the rules but, are we over-analysing this a wee bit. I think Bob's explanation was deep enough. JMO

[BK47]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Do you really believe that the players are going to put that much thought into this for something that MIGHT happen and "It's one of those that is so quick you could blink and miss it" situations.

Why not? Stranger things have happened, Right? Of course I dont believe the players would really put that much thought into it and why would MLB be any different with the thought process?