Illegally batted ball?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

By rule it should have been called an out.

By common sense, it was a great bunt.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Prescriptivist.

In this instance, guilty as charged.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
Man, PU blew the snot out of this call. He has a clear view of B's foot out of the box but he's looking up the line. The mechanic here is simple, once B has made contact, a quick glance down (don't have to dip your head) to check feet and the right call is made.

Pitiful.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

You have to be out of your f@*#ing mind to call that an illegally batted ball.

Please, the swearing is unnecessary. Hold deep your frustrations.

Simple call. I am looking at the exact moment (clip) that B contacts the ball. The PU is looking up the line and/or at the ball. Never once did he look at the feet of the batter.

If he had been checking foot position as the proper mechanic immediately after the ball is contacted, he would have clearly seen that B's left foot is behind the point of home plate. The inside line of the box is clearly in view as is the where the intersection of the inside and back lines would meet.

OUT.

PU blew it not so much that he missed a clearly illegally batted ball but that, imo, he freaked when he saw it was a squeeze. Hence, up the line goes his attention and away goes the proper call.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

1) IMO probably a play on. Unless you clearly see his foot COMPLETELY outside the box....play on!

Agree!

2) Would it be at all appropriate for a field umpire to help out on this call since he has a better view that PU?

Get the call right is my mantra. Absolutely!

[bob jenkins]

In some game I was watching this weekend (maybe Cubs-Brewers), a similar play happened. Routine sac bunt, and the batter was clearly out of the box. No call, no replay, no discussion, ....

It will "never" be called in MLB on anything approaching a routine play.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Simple call. I am looking at the exact moment (clip) that B contacts the ball. The PU is looking up the line and/or at the ball. Never once did he look at the feet of the batter.

If he had been checking foot position as the proper mechanic immediately after the ball is contacted, he would have clearly seen that B's left foot is behind the point of home plate.

Could you tell me at what professional school or in which publication that proper mechanic is found?

[MikeStrybel]

I may be wrong but according to PBUC;

Accidental batted ball; out of the box
A batter is obviously trying desperately to avoid being hit by a pitch. His foot lands completely out of the batter's box and the pitch hits his bat. He is not attempting to hit the ball. Is he out? Is it a foul if it goes foul? Is it a fair ball if it goes fair?

PBUC answer: Don't call batter-runner out (He did not deliberately step out of batter's box to hit pitch). Result of batted would stand (fair or foul)
Same situation as above but as he is ducking the pitch he drops the bat and the pitch hits the bat while it is not in the batter's hands. What is the call?

It would stand to reason that if PBUC demands an umpire be aware of intent for this case, they would want an umpire to be aware of a batter who deliberately steps out in order to contact the ball. Right?

Jim preaches to watch the ball into the mitt. That means that an umpire is looking forward and most often, down.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In some game I was watching this weekend (maybe Cubs-Brewers), a similar play happened. Routine sac bunt, and the batter was clearly out of the box. No call, no replay, no discussion, ....

It will "never" be called in MLB on anything approaching a routine play.

I agree. Why is that? Why should there be different rules, clear violations of OBR, that are overlooked? Is it having a "player's mentality" as an MLB umpire?

The OBR needs a complete rewrite. This is one of dozens of examples - another would be pitch-counts which alter ball-strike zones - of rules that are ignored, reduced or have no agreed interpretation. There are no rules to cover some situations.

It's fast becoming a serious joke and the end game will be the automation of officiating at ever increasing levels.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I may be wrong but according to PBUC;


It would stand to reason that if PBUC demands an umpire be aware of intent for this case, they would want an umpire to be aware of a batter who deliberately steps out in order to contact the ball. Right?

Jim preaches to watch the ball into the mitt. That means that an umpire is looking forward and most often, down.

Yes he does. The question becomes what is your first responsibility after the ball has been bunted and that would be to do a quick check of the feet.

In the case in point, it is clearly and completely obvious that the batter could well be outside the box. B is having to reach well across the plate, his left hand is past the outside corner, F2 has cleared to catch an outside pitch and fer Crissakes B's foot is within inches of the PUs foot. What was he doing, how can he miss this call?

I have to think that PU isn't trained to make this call (Jenkins claim this isn't called in MLB) or he is so totally stunned by the squeeze he forgets wtf he is doing.

Let's take this to another level. If MLB umpires do not make this call, then how far can B go outside the box to bunt? Across the plate? 5 feet into the infield? Where is the limit?

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Could you tell me at what professional school or in which publication that proper mechanic is found?

I teach it. I don't need a professional school, which apparently doesn't teach outside the box = OUT, to misinform me or do I need a publication to misinform me to disregard OBR.

YMMV, obviously. Think for yourself, man!

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

another would be pitch-counts which alter ball-strike zones

Could you be more specific on this? I'm confused.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I may be wrong but according to PBUC;


It would stand to reason that if PBUC demands an umpire be aware of intent for this case, they would want an umpire to be aware of a batter who deliberately steps out in order to contact the ball. Right?

Jim preaches to watch the ball into the mitt. That means that an umpire is looking forward and most often, down.

Surely you understand the difference between the PBUC case and the situation in this thread. In case you do not, I'll answer my rhetorical question:

Neither PBUC nor the Academy teaches, as a standard or routine mechanic, to look at the batter's feet after a pitch or batted ball as ST"b" described.

Thanks for playing.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

I teach it. I don't need a professiuonal school, which apparently doesn't teach outside the box = OUT, to misinform me or do I need a publication to misinform me to disregard OBR.

YMMV, obviously. Think for yourself, man!

No one suggested anything of the like. What was asked was who taught what you described as a routine mechanic. Simlple question that doe not require a philosophical debate of a rule.

[MikeStrybel]

PBUC teaches umpires to see balls hit foul off a batter's feet. They expect umpires to watch the batter for illegal behavior as well.

Look at 6.06a and read the note. OBR is still taught at pro school, right?

Hank Aaron lost a home run for being out of the box.

Babe Ruth was called out when he stepped across the plate to hit a pitch on an intentional walk.

Bernie Williams was called out for bunting while out of the box.

Maury Wills used to have his ground crews make the boxes bigger when facing duece throwers. He was caught and fined.

Ask Carl Everett about his exchange with Ron Kulpa about being out of the box.

[yawetag]

Five examples over several decades. In that time, what percentage of these calls do you think were made?