Illegally batted ball?
 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fmo59rbzovQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maybe. A little hard for me to tell from the video. And the guy that was standing three feet behind the plate who has responsibility for this call probably had an even worse view!

Watching the pitch would take your eyes away from the spot the foot was touching and the batter is probably blocking your view anyway.

I just thought it was cool that a team won a game 1-0 on a suicide squeeze, cooler yet than it was the Tribe and even cooler that they swept Boston. I couldn't watch the game yesterday, so was watching the STO replay this morning while getting ready for work. Had to stop brushing my teeth and walk to the living room when Cabrerra came to bat!

The last angle was the best angle to see this. It looks pretty obvious that he was out of the box, but the PU would not be able to see that very well based on his angle and the catcher blocking the view.

Peace

Illegally batted ball?

Apparently not. I checked the box score.

Very rarely called (or expected to be called) in MLB.

Not to mention the horrible base running by Boston to end the game.

Prescriptivist. :p

Man, PU blew the snot out of this call. :mad: 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. :rolleyes:

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

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?

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?

No.

I understand why the ump may have missed the call (for all the reasons previously stated); but the line is not "obliterated". You can plainly see it in the different camera angles and the batter's heel (and his entire foot) is clearly outside the box when he makes contact with the ball. By rule it should have been called an out.

+1

By common sense, it was a great bunt.

In this instance, guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Man, PU blew the snot out of this call. :mad: 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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:

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. :(

Agree!;)Get the call right is my mantra. Absolutely!:)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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! :(

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Notice nobody, NOBODY arguing for such a call to be made.

With the benefit of replay, I can see that his foot is probably 2 inches out of the box (only his heel has to be touching the line) at the time of contact. You expect an umpire to get that in real time? Especially since you have to see the foot at the time of contact, not a second later (since if the foot's in the air at contact, it's a legal play).

I choose to take my direction in this type play from the ML umpires who, wisely, IMO, don't bother with this kind of nonsense.

That wasn't the question. 6.06a is still taught at pro school.

As noted, Evans and Wendlestedt both teach their students to see the ball contact the bat and then redirect to the batter's foot. That is a standard mechanic and is requires an umpire to know where the batter's feet are when contact is made.

In response to your question, I can think of numerous calls that aren't made regularly but that doesn't dismiss the fact that they are taught to look for them. Further, I cited a few that were noteworthy but there are others. When told that MLB doesn't call them, I merely provided a few times when they did. Obviously these umpires were taught the mechanic and remember how to do it. Knowing how to apply basic mechanics to help in uncommon situations is in play here. The rule book doesn't define every word and PBUC doesn't display every mechanic.

What about the case of swinging at an IBB? I can't find a video of Cabrera's hit, but I wonder how far he had to reach. Are illegally batted balls called at all?

Doh! Nevermind.... I missed this post:

But this was a long time ago. I don't know how often people actually swing at IBBs. But I presume the PU is looking at feet in these cases, no?

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.

Yes, it was a long time ago. I mentioned them because they were huge stars who broke the rules and were caught.

Look, we've got a lot to do out there, track the pitch, watch for catcher's obstruction, batter interference, etc. We do this all while trying to judge a pitch that is moving pretty fast, maybe in a few different ways and without much more than guide on the ground to aid us. Gauging that extra split second to see of a player's foot is completely out of the box is incredibly difficult. That may be one of the leading reasons why we don't see it called more in the pros. And they have chalked lines that don't disappear like most of ours do!

Good luck this season.

Not just the potential for the foot being in the air at the moment of contact - with a lunge like this, I GUARANTEE his foot is sliding forward - if you look down AFTER the contact, his foot is not where it was when he made contact.

Nevermind that in this particular play, with the foot significantly behind the plate, it's highly likely the umpire was blocked by the catcher at the moment of contact.

Agreed, Mike. Can you think of any other rules that we are expected to call but are so difficult to see that they are largely ignored?

Depending on the MLB umpire, the rule that the pitch must cross the plate to be called a strike is too difficult to see and largely ignored. :)

JEAPU does teach umpires to call out of the box. If memory and my notes serve me well, this is something to resist over-officiating.

In other words - call it only when it is so clear the base umpires will see it...or if a player is known for it and...does it as in part one.

You so funny.

Better yet, ask Kupa about the exchange and who, afterwards, got the better end of that deal and what word went out from MLB on how to handle that situation in the future. Seen it called lately? Hilarious.

You truly see no difference in tracking a batted ball to the foot and tracking the ball away from a batter, into fair terriotry and still taking time to look for a foot? Neither school teaches that. Neither.

Wow.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
another would be pitch-counts which alter ball-strike zones
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.

Each of us have differing capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. I have never had a problem with this call, making or teaching it. One reason may be I'm in a helmet that isn't cleared when the bunt/IBB is made. OMMV but to not check the feet in the case we are discussing was a gross mechanical failure imho.

You mean no one who apparently is not in your killfile. :rolleyes:Absolutely.What other OBR's do you ignore?

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.

And no argument by Francona.

Does the PBUC manual describe every mechanic needed to handle every possible play? How about the CCA? Red book?

6.06a It's in the rules because administrators want to prevent batters from gaining an illegal advantage. It's a tough call to make. At the MLB level the pitches and players are incredibly fast, making this call truly difficult. That's why when it is enforced the call makes SportsCenter...when it's not enforced it also makes SportsCenter too. :cool:

Life goes on.

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 :cool:)

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.

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. :cool:

You don't need to go there. I know plenty of HS-only umpires who are probably as terrible as the guys I've killfiled here. BTW, quoting these jokers makes me read their drivel if I keep following the thread.

I'm working one of the World Series put on by LL this year and I can assure you that many of us carry common sense and a sense of baseball tradition onto the field. Many of us are also HS and college umpires in the spring and work LL to give back to our communities in a way we enjoy.

As you know, Rich, many of us distinguish between LL umpires and umpires who work LL.