Illegally batted ball?

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Exactly. The inside line of the box is obliterated -- the PU is supposed to be able to tell if the back of the heel is out of the box or not based on that quick look?

Quick glance down? Prove that the foot was ON THE GROUND and completely out of the box at the INSTANT contact with the ball was made. You simply can't do that.

If you go looking for this crap, you're failing at your #1 job -- tracking the pitch.

C'mon. Umpires are perfect. How can you possibly say this?

[rbmartin]

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

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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?

No.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
another would be pitch-counts which alter ball-strike zones

Originally Posted by yawetag

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

There is a common line of thinking that the strike zone should shift with the pitch count. The best example of this is widening 3-0 especially if B is sitting the bat on his shoulder; up and out of the zone is the most often expansion I see.

Another is the 0-2 pitch where B has sat his bat watching two perfectly hittable strikes and the call goes F1 way when it is on location of the mitt but outside the zone. I see this most often with good breaking balls or two seamed, moving fastballs.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Agree!Get the call right is my mantra. Absolutely!

So ... you're proposing that one of the field umpires, from 100-130 feet away, is supposed to be able to see this batter's heel, the chalk, and the ball being struck all at the same time and his judgment (guess!) should overrule the PU who is 2-3 feet away? Please for the sake of this game, stay the heck off the field. Please.

Go find a field - a 90' base one, not the 60's you're certainly working on, blur out the lines as closely as possible to what you see in the video, go head to any MLB umpire position and tell us if you can see ANY chalk - any at all. You can't.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

So ... you're proposing that one of the field umpires, from 100-130 feet away, is supposed to be able to see this batter's heel, the chalk, and the ball being struck all at the same time and his judgment (guess!) should overrule the PU who is 2-3 feet away?

Go find a field - a 90' base one, not the 60's you're certainly working on, blur out the lines as closely as possible to what you see in the video, go head to any MLB umpire position and tell us if you can see ANY chalk - any at all. You can't.

I answered this when I said that BU cannot overrule PU. This doesn't mean that BU if he sees something that is contrary to PUs ruling, he has the ethical responsibility to let PU know. Then PU can either do the right thing and correct his call or he can curl up and slink back behind the plate the coward he is.

[SethPDX]

I answered this when I said that BU cannot overrule PU. This doesn't mean that BU if he sees something that is contrary to PUs ruling, he has the ethical responsibility to let PU know. Then PU can either do the right thing and correct his call or he can curl up and slink back behind the plate the coward he is.

So the BU should come in giving unsolicited information?

What other OBRs do you ignore?

(Yes, I am posting for my own enjoyment as this poster seems familiar )

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

So the BU should come in giving unsolicited information?

Only if BU has a sense of ethics, truthfulness, responsibility to the game, its heritage, its players and its future. Otherwise, as many on this forum will choose to do, take the low road, it's faster and easier to the paycheck and the cheap beers postgame.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

I answered this when I said that BU cannot overrule PU. This doesn't mean that BU if he sees something that is contrary to PUs ruling, he has the ethical responsibility to let PU know. Then PU can either do the right thing and correct his call or he can curl up and slink back behind the plate the coward he is.

If this were the case, instead of Jim Joyce having Jim Leyland visit him at first base, he'd have had some visitors dressed just like him.