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.