Out of the Box? Maybe not!

[Linknblue]

Working ASA this weekend. PU made a call on a batter hitting the ball while outside the box. He did all the mechanics correctly and called her out. Coach came out for a discussion and PU pointed to spot on ground where batter was but coach took exception....not arguing where she was when contact was made but that the boxes were marked incorrectly and she was actually still within the boundries of a proper batter's box.

PU disagreed and marched off box measurment using feet to measure box and indicated, in his opinion, they were correct. Coach disagreed and indicated boxes were lined improperly.

PU got animated at this point and told coach to go back to dugout, he'd heard enough and that his ruling was going to stay with the out. He also issued a warning to the coach for "arguing".

Long story short, the PU when he measured took 3 steps, heel to toe, when he measured and he should have taken 4 steps. The boxes were actually marked with the front line being 3 feet out instead of 4 feet so coach was correct.

Is this a "protestable" issue? I'm thinking it is because the rules say what the box measurements should be and they violated the rules. Coach didn't protest because I don't think he knew he could on this issue.

In reality this should have been checked before game and if they were wrong PU should have probably said something at pregrame meeting and then rubbed out the "wrong lines" and said he'd use his judgment.

Am I wrong in this?

[CecilOne]

Certainly correction earlier would have been proper and correct.

Protestable as applying the box 4 ft rule incorrectly, probably.
Question is whether the PU judged the foot between the 3 and 4 foot distances, wrong rule; or judged beyond 4 feet ins spite of measured facts.

[Dakota]

OK, this response is based on my understanding of the technically correct action. Would I actually do this? IDK. I have to deal with goofy field lines all the time, but if the lines are left in place, they are the lines for game play up until they are discovered to be wrong.

Errors in the field layout or dimensions are not protestable. Since no one actually measured the batter's box, (or the umpire's shoe), I have my doubts about a protest being upheld based on incorrect application of the rule by the umpire. He did actually use the lines as drawn, didn't he? So, his incorrect understanding only meant the box was not corrected.

Assume the umpire knew the batter's box was supposed to be 4 feet wide, and that his informal measurement concluded it was 3 feet wide. The correct action is to fix the box and continue, not to go back and correct history.

Fix the box and move on, call stands.

Now, if this was the first time such a call was made in this game, would I do the technically correct thing or would I reverse the call? Hmmmm....

[Linknblue]

Tom,
Good answer as far as I'm concerned. Makes sense.

Me on hmmmm? I think Ida reversed my call, corrected the box and moved on. I might have regained some of my credibility lost when I made original call even though it was technically correct. In coach's eyes it's never going to be technically correct cuz the box was incorrectly laid out.

Ball went foul anyway so no one would have been hurt by reversing.....just another strike on the batter.

Thanks

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dakota

OK, this response is based on my understanding of the technically correct action. Would I actually do this? IDK. I have to deal with goofy field lines all the time, but if the lines are left in place, they are the lines for game play up until they are discovered to be wrong.

Errors in the field layout or dimensions are not protestable. Since no one actually measured the batter's box, (or the umpire's shoe), I have my doubts about a protest being upheld based on incorrect application of the rule by the umpire. He did actually use the lines as drawn, didn't he? So, his incorrect understanding only meant the box was not corrected.

Assume the umpire knew the batter's box was supposed to be 4 feet wide, and that his informal measurement concluded it was 3 feet wide. The correct action is to fix the box and continue, not to go back and correct history.

Fix the box and move on, call stands.

Now, if this was the first time such a call was made in this game, would I do the technically correct thing or would I reverse the call? Hmmmm....

It's not about four feet wide. In SB it's four feet forward of the center of the plate versus three feet for baseball. The fact the the umpire took three "feet" as the measurement shows a rule misapplication (and an incorrectly marked box(.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's not about four feet wide. In SB it's four feet forward of the center of the plate versus three feet for baseball.

Yes, thanks. Mistype/brain cramp.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The fact the the umpire took three "feet" as the measurement shows a rule misapplication (and an incorrectly marked box(.

No, since he did make the original call based on the lines as drawn, it was not a misapplication of the rules, regardless of what he believed the correct size to be. Incorrectly drawn lines are not protestable. Correct the lines and move on.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dakota

. Incorrectly drawn lines are not protestable. Correct the lines and move on.

But the batter's box is defined in the rules, not by the lines drawn on the field. The rule does NOT say "The batter's box is delineated by the lines on the field". It IS defined by diagram and/or description in the rules.

If you call the lines instead of the rules it's a misapplication.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I don't think the rule books are really definitive on this, but I would share some thoughts.

1) It is our responsibility to check the field (and we often don't) to make sure the field is per requirements, as well as safety. Not knowing the box is drawn improperly really isn't an acceptable answer. The fact that he didn't even know the proper dimensions is even more unacceptable; his "measurement" wasn't horrific in my opinion, but his following statement was. I can't say my shoe is exactly 12" long, but I know it isn't 9" or 18".

2) If the box is drawn improperly, you have two realistic options; a) get it redrawn, or b) rub out the inaccurate lines and play just as you will from the second inning on, anyway, using your judgment in the absence of clear lines. But that should have happened before the start of the game. Doing the field inspection (and ending up at a plate meeting), perhaps the base umpire could have noted the inaccurate box? Link, if that was you, your fault as much as his, you are a "crew". (I guess I am assuming 2 man in your area.)

3) This OP may be different only because the ball was batted foul, and there is no real consequence for killing the play with a dead ball, but, if you "undo" the out (and I am leaning to that is the right thing to do), how would you treat a fair batted ball when a) you have killed the play before an out or safe is clear, b) you cannot unring that bell, anymore than you can make an incorrectly called foul ball retroactively fair, c) the batter has completed her at-bat according to the rules, so putting her back in the box with a do-over is not an option?? Seems to me your legitimate options (not to include a "make everyone happy half-ass solution) are to award the batter first base and advance forced runners only if you undo the out call, or maintain the out call.

No matter what, you have put both teams in jeopardy by NOT DOING YOUR JOB to begin with. But, this OP had an easy solution putting no one at a disadvantage; it's a foul ball, play on!!

4) There are times we have to use the lines as drawn; we cannot expect every foul line to be completely accurate, nor have them redrawn every time they are not. And we simply cannot use judgment to overrule the line (unless the ball hits the base or the foul pole). And if the pitcher's circle is off, the lines that everyone can see is the only fair way to judge lookback rule. But, I wouldn't extend the running lane to the batters box if someone drew it that way, any more than I would say there is no running lane if it wasn't drawn. So, we have to know when the line is the only proper way to rule, and when it isn't.

In my opinion, in this case (foul batted ball), the PU should have accepted the additional information (box is wrong) same as "yes, pulled foot", corrected and moved on. Maybe you eat the fair ball, but this was an easy fix.

[Dakota]

I agree the rule book is not definitive wrt the batter's box, but it is definitive wrt the position of the pitcher's plate and the length of the base lines (both of which should also be checked pre-game, but how often are they?), and the rule book says to make the correction and play on. Presumably, this would apply even if the BR was out by a half a step in a fast pitch game with the bases set for slow pitch which caused the OC to question the base placement.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I I agree the rule book is not definitive wrt the batter's box,.

It certainly is. It defines the size and positioning. What else is there?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It certainly is. It defines the size and positioning. What else is there?

Context is everything.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In my opinion, in this case (foul batted ball), the PU should have accepted the additional information (box is wrong) same as "yes, pulled foot", corrected and moved on. Maybe you eat the fair ball, but this was an easy fix.

Can you really say this was a fair or foul ball? The call of dead ball prevented anything else from happening, no? What if it were a dribbler up the first base line moving in and out of foul territory that no one bothered to keep from going fair. It seems like a can of worms to dig through (though I guess it was already open).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

Can you really say this was a fair or foul ball? The call of dead ball prevented anything else from happening, no? What if it were a dribbler up the first base line moving in and out of foul territory that no one bothered to keep from going fair. It seems like a can of worms to dig through (though I guess it was already open).

Yes, I say it was foul because Link, the only one that was there on this thread, says it was foul. What basis do you have to dispute that?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Yes, I say it was foul because Link, the only one that was there on this thread, says it was foul. What basis do you have to dispute that?

If the ball was dead at the moment of contact, then when the ball became dead it was over fair territory. Nothing that happened to it after that matters. I realize it's a fairly easy sell if it was fouled straight off into the fence to say it was going to be foul anyway. But I just don't see how that can be part of how you correct it in general because some foul balls might have ended up fair if played differently.