Out of batter's box
 

It looks like different rule for different organizations, but wanted more information. Can't understand why this rule would be different between organizations. Here is question...

Batter/slapper's "wheel" foot steps in front of home plate (field has not been re-lined and lines non-existent) and slaps ball foul.
Is batter out?
What I have found...
USFA says batter out only if ball hit in fair territory. NSA unclear. USSSA says batter out fair or foul (but if lines are not evident, benefit of doubt should go to batter). ASA-can't find rule.

Thanks for responses.

The batter is out,

7-6-D When an entire foot is touching the ground completely outside the lines of the batter's box at the time the ball makes contact with the bat.

For clarification, that's the ASA rule that RKBUmp is giving. Please note that it does not specify whether the ball was hit fair or foul. As such, it does not matter whether the ball was hit fair or foul.

And it does not matter that the chalk lines aren't there. The batter's box is still there, it's still the same size, and the umpire has a pretty good idea of where the line would be if it were lined properly.

And the same rule applies for NFHS and NCAA. Batter is out.

Is it also a dead ball in NFHS and NCAA? The ball would be dead in ASA...

It's a dead ball in USSSA, at least in the slow-pitch game. Called this so many times this year I feel like it's become a trademark for me. :rolleyes:

NSA is not unclear. NSA Rule 7-1-aBatter is out, regardless of where the batted ball ends up, since the ball is dead when hit.

This leaves UFSA as the only odd man out. Imagine my surprise.

After I made this call only one time in my last tourney, I got a 15-minute lecture from the AUIC on how to make this call.

What about YSISF? They cut off your hands.

Yes

Same rule in PONY, dead ball, fair or foul.

Just for emphasis in all rule sets - boxes, boundaries, lanes, etc. are always there; visible lines or not.

Are you going to explain or should we just assume you kicked the batter and yelled "no such rule in USFA"? :p :D :D

Actually, I'll be honest. My initial (and also hidden) reaction was, "what the hell, man? It was a good call, and you're busting my nuts for it?"

However, he had some great points that made me take a step back to look at things from a different perspective. Yes, the batter's foot was clearly out of the box when he made contact. The AUIC (whom I will call "Fred," obviously not his real name) did not dispute that, and he said that from that aspect, I'm correct. However, his question to me was: why is that wrong?

We've all seen (and probably done) it: the umpire calls the batter out, coach comes to talk to the umpire, and the umpire points to the clear footprint left in the dirt. And yet, despite that, the coach continues to argue his player's case. What can an umpire do to avoid this?

"Fred" said to me, "it's not an issue of whether or not he was out of the box, but whether the batter gained an advantage by doing so." Does stepping out of the box necessarily give the batter an advantage? Not always, and Fred's message was that when it doesn't give the batter an advantage, maybe we shouldn't try to split hairs so much.

However, stepping out of the box often does give the batter certain advantages, such as pulling the ball harder down the line (by stepping back) or hitting an otherwise unhittable pitch (by stepping across). It's during these times, Fred contends, that the call should be made. Otherwise, you're simply splitting hairs, calling a call that really has minimal bearing on the game. And when you're picking boogers like that, we all know where that can land you.

Making these calls is something that every umpire must evaluate when setting foot on the field, and we do it every day. In our Tuesday night rec leagues, do we make everyone wear proper uniforms? Do we make them all turn their hats forward? In 10U, do we call every single illegal pitch when the pitcher gained no advantage? By the letter of the rule, shouldn't we be making these calls? Why aren't we?

Simple. No advantage gained, nothing lost, no call.

And now, how does this help us with a offensive coach whose batter just got called out? Simple. "Coach, the batter stepped out of the box and hit a pitch that would have been otherwise unhittable. In my judgment, he gained an unfair advantage by doing so, and we can't allow that to happen." You're telling the coach you're not out to pick nits, but rather to keep things on an even keel. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in the first place?

I hope that I've done justice to the 15-minute conversation that "Fred" and I had that day.

Lousy, stinking INFIDELS!!!

Dave, without copying and pasting your entire response, I wanted to respond to your lengthy, yet well-pointed discussion. Your AUIC makes a very good point with the advantage/disadvantage argument. That's something we use, not just in softball, but in other sports as well, football and basketball being my other sports. Of course, basketball is the big one on advantage/disadvantage. However, your AUIC probably is forgetting that sometimes you have to throw out that advantage/disadvantage thing when there's been a clear violation that cannot be ignored. An example would be the batter stepping out of the box so obviously the catcher saw it. If the catcher sees it, we really can't avoid calling it because then the defensive coach will be all over our case on it. That's why I don't call ALL of the stepping out of the box stuff. Earlier, it was noted in USSSA, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batter. I've used that to my advantage, and it works. It also depends on the level of play, travel team boys vs. the recreational beer league boys.

I'm not dissing advantage/disadvantage (used it big time in a freshmen football game the other morning, and pissed off an assistant coach so bad I had the head coach rein him in). There's a time and place where you have to throw out that advantage/disadvantage practice when obvious has happened, and going with that philosophy can burn you and create a cluster f**k later.

And that's why I felt that I wasn't doing the conversation justice. The dead-a$$ obvious calls SHOULD be called, or you'll end up looking more incompetent than they already think we are. Fred was advocating that if the batter's foot was smack-dab in the middle of the plate when contact was made, well, you've gotta call it. There are some rules that we just can not ignore.

But those calls where the batter steps across the plate and nearly into the other box? Call those, too! Why? Because again, the batter gained an advantage by stepping out of the box to hit an otherwise unhittable ball.

Otherwise, if his foot is an inch out of the box, no advantage is gained, and the catcher asks you about his foot, your answer is simple. "Catch, I'm concentrating on seeing if I can call a strike for your pitcher. Sorry, but I didn't see it."

That last section, for the record, was NOT something Fred said. That's me talking.

Agreed 100%. I've had to tell catchers the same thing, especially with the very subtle out of the box steps. I've even used the line "if there was a line there, he'd stepped ON it." Works just as well.

Well, only problem was that the line was CLEARLY there when I had called it during that game. It was top of the 2nd inning, and the lines were almost as sharp as they were from the start of the game.

My initial reaction was, "oh cluck, I'm gonna HAVE to call this one...." :D

And what do you tell the catcher that saw the player contact the ball with the foot on the ground completely outside of the BB?

You now have to either lie to the catcher (which I just will not do to anyone) or tell the player, "You're correct, but IMJ the batter did not gain an advantage by violating the rule, so I'm not calling it." Now you just set yourself up for a protest as you just admitted to misinterpreting a rule, unless FRED is the UIC.

Actually, I'm not completely opposed to what FRED is trying to sell, just that I realize there are two teams on the field that voluntarily agreed to play by a certain set of rules. I also am of the belief you don't nit pick, but can someone tell me where the line between nit picking and doing you job is drawn? You ever have someone tell you that if you have to go look for it, you probably shouldn't call it?

But let's talk the theory of advantage/disadvantage. If a batter hits a ball he normally would not have been able to hit, that means the pitch would have been called a ball. Where is the advantage? Many OBS are relatively routine and really didn't give anyone an edge, but we call it anyway, don't we?

Where is the advantage or disadvantage to the LBR? Why not allow a runner to stand in foul territory off 3B for safety reasons as long as they are not closer to the plate? After all, there is no advantage, is there?
For that matter, what advantage does a runner gain by stepping over 1B instead of touching it? Yet, on appeal, we will rule that runner out.

There are instances in the ASA (and other) rules which acknowledge advantage/disadvantage as in stopping a ball with detached equipment, umpire inteference with a catcher, etc. along with the common sense of not calling a player out for removing a helmet if there is no ball in the area or a catcher hitting the bat when throwing the ball back to the pitcher.

And yes, there are things like IPs at the 10U or JV level, but does the umpire not make them aware of the issue and then call it if not corrected? To me, that type of judicious action is more along the lines of survival than TOAD.

There are hundreds of different issues that could be addressed under this heading, but there would be no resolution. Like I said, where do you draw that line?

I am not advocating ignoring common sense, but you need to remember there are two teams on the field and they deserve equal attention. For example, in the given play, what do you do when that catcher you blew off steps in the middle of the plate and fouls one off? Do you "make up" for the previous call even though the world just saw what happened?

BTW, I really don't care about "handling" the OC and I don't need to "make excuses" to sell my call. You reiterate the call, what occurred that drew the call and the results. Let him have his say, calmly answer any reasonable questions "once" and move on. If the coach gets too animated or gives cause that s/he needs to go, send'em.

I guess Fred and I will just have to disagree. Then again, I also disagree with the clinician who told the group that if a BR interferes with the defenses ability to catch a pop-up over fair territory that comes down and rolls foul as a "foul ball" because that is easier to sell. And s/he is a member of the softball officiating hierarchy

That's 'easier' to sell? wow :eek:

Is that cluck louder after you've had a chicken sandwich? :D

Without quoting everything Mike said. :D

Again, bear in mind that the last paragraph wasn't what "Fred" said, so those were not his words exactly. Those were my words meant to be taken only within the context in which they were framed: a batter whose foot is an inch outside of the box. Even with the lines, I'm not going to split that hair. How do I know the boxes are the right dimensions? How do I know they're straight? "Coach, in my judgment, the batter's foot was not out of the box when he contacted the ball."

I'll admit that I was not 100% taken with everything that "Fred" said about the reasons for not calling the batter for being out of the box on contact. I think it sets you up for problems with the defensive coach when everyone else seems to see the foot out of the box except for you. And once it starts with one coach or team, it spreads fast. You're absolutely correct: if you call it one way for one team and the other way for the other team, why are you even out there? "Call it both ways, Blue" may be an annoying thing to hear, but that is our goal out there.

The big takeaway from that conversation was not the reasons for not calling the batter out, but rather, the reasons for calling the batter out and how to sell them. Fred repeatedly made it clear that he had no problem with my call. What he had a problem with was how I sold the call: showing the crisp footprint that was clearly out of the box. While this is evidence that bolsters your argument with a coach, it does two things. It can come across as picking nits (ie., "looking for a call"), and it can be received badly by a coach who may think you're showing him up.

More specifically to the conversation, he tossed this out there: instead of it happening in the second inning, what if it happened in the bottom of the 7th to end the game? How do you sell that call to the coach who will definitely blow a gasket on that call, guaranteed? Do you tell the coach that his player violated a technicality and here's his foot? Or do you tell the coach that he violated a technicality, thus giving himself an advantage that he would not have had if he had stayed in the box? The former, while just as correct as the latter, is a pretty weak "textbook" argument that tells the coach that you know what the rules say, but not why they say it. The latter argument is the "why" portion of the rule.

Probably, since the offensive coach was about to lay an egg after that call. ;)

You tell the coach the same thing as I stated before. If it is a strike in the second inning, is it a strike in the 7th if it may draw the ire of the coach? If it is an IP in the second inning, is it a strike in the 7th if it may draw the ire of the coach?

I don't give a damn if the coach is going to blow a gasket. Tell him to talk to the idiot that doesn't know where he is supposed to keep his feet.

How many times have you heard, "How can you make that call now?" or "How can you end a game on a call like that?" Amazing how these coaches/players never argue the call, but the fact that it was made.

So far all I have heard is concern about what the coach is going to think, how you are going to handle that coach, technicalities, who may get an advantage or be subject to a disadvantage, but I haven't heard much about officiating the game, just justification for what may or may not occur during the game.

Again, not suggesting you call every little nit under particular circumstances, but you call what you see as recommended by the association under which the game is being played and use some common sense.

Mike, I'm not saying we should be overly concerned with what the coach thinks. The coach has his/her job, and we have ours. However, when you're explaining a rule or a call to a coach, we need to use arguments that have some teeth to them. Simply shrugging and saying, "well, that's just the rule coach," has very little teeth. Fred's explanation goes into the "why" aspect of the rules, which is what we should all be learning anyway. Again, he wasn't disputing my call, he was disputing the method with which I, and many others have, explained that call. Pointing to a foot in the ground has no teeth. Telling a coach that you saw the batter out of the box on contact and telling the coach that his batter can't be allowed to gain an advantage that way does have more teeth.

To me, this valuable lesson was that of game management via solid rule interpretations and explanations, and I think we're straying from that lesson a little too much.

And yes, I would make that call in the bottom of the 7th. You're talking to an umpire who has called interference to end a semi-final game. Twice. :)

Heres my new philosophy angle I've been working on thanks to another umpire.

"Coach, this umpire doesn't make calls. That happened, I just pointed it out."

:cool:

To me, there is an epiphany there.

That doesnt mean OOO by any stretch, because that I hate - but there is a line that runs down OOO and the exact reason they pay us to be out there.

Yep sometimes you gotta take appropriate directed heat because --it happens.

Not necessarily in this topic, but in general, I disagree with:
- calls/no-calls because of what anyone thinks/reacts
- calls/no-calls because of the point in the game or score
- advantage/disadvantage is softball, except FR & MS, game management necessity
- OOO

Anyone who umpires fastpitch at a variety of levels uses advantage/disadvantage; if you did not, some of those lower level games would become officiating, not playing.

However, no matter the level, I would never utter those words in an explanation to a coach. Doesn't mean I would lie (e.g. "Didn't see it, coach."); but I would not tell him I agree it was illegal but did not call it because there was no advantage.

If I am not calling something due to the level of play (classic example: ticky-tack pitching mechanics errors such as double touching where there is no batter or runner deceit), I'm straight up with the rationale... "I've talked with the other coach about it, coach, and I'm not calling that at this level of play. It is something they need to work on in practice." But, 99.9% of the time, both coaches also recognize this and never bring the infractions up.

Of course, all of that goes away in champioinship play, regardless of the level of play.

The foot out of the batter's box is hard to see, and since it is a timing infraction, forensic evidence (e.g. footprints) are of no help at all. No one is arguing whether the batter stepped out of the box - of course she did - the issue is was it before contact or not? That is a much sounder basis than advantage/disadvantage for not getting overly technical or ticky-tack in making this call.

Maybe it is the terminology I'm hung up on. I've never believed it is the official's position to determine what is or is not advantageous. Seems to me that has already been addressed and resolved by those who established the rules.

Do I address different level of games in a different manner? Sure, who doesn't? Are there possible issues I may approach in a different manner? Yep. May even take the point of the season into consideration. But I do not ignore them. If I see a pitcher who is doing something that is not permitted by rule, I may give the coaches a heads up. Am I going to specifically look for that violation? No, but if it presents itself in an obvious manner, I'm going to make the appropriate call.

As Tom noted, informing coaches of a violation (ticky-tack, to some), but unless it is blatant or becomes a problem, it is not going to be called is probably something we have all done at some level. If the offended team demands I make the call when a violation occurs, no problem, I will. Unfortunately, many coaches who are like that tend to overlook their own team's indiscretions and cannot understand when they are brought to light. :D

As previously noted, I think it is awfully difficult to determine the line of what could or should be "overlooked" and, in some cases, may actually reflect on the umpire's integrity.

Boxes??? We don't need no stinking boxes!!!

With apologies to Mr. Bogart. :)

Well, technically the apology should be made to character actor Alfonso Bedoya. :D

Or to Mel Brooks.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFwprS_L6tg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TFwprS_L6tg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

De Camptown ladies sing this song... Do da... Do da...

Thanks for the info & commentary
 

Thanks everyone for the info. This call was made on our lead-off batter twice in as many at-bats. We are a girls fastpitch 10U team playing in the fall to prepare our girls for next Spring/Summer and these are the types of things we are working on. Our lead-off has not been "slapping" long and couldn't understand her mistake. It was very "picky" at the time in my opinion. Her foot was in front of the plate, but had there been visible lines, it could have been argued that her heel was still touching the line. Either way, stay in the box and there is no argument.

The argument could also be made that her heel did not touch the line until after contact was made.:rolleyes: :DCoach,

I understand you are working with very young girls, probably with limited experience. Whether it was "picky" or not, only you can offer an opinion as none of us were there (at least, I don't think).

F.Y.I., don't think you want to debate the "lines" issue. The batter's box is there whether lined or not. Many of us get that argument regularly as if the batter is going to stop in the middle of their swing, look down to make sure they step in the right place and then continue their swing. This is a rule umpires usually don't make unless there is absolutely no doubt there was a violation.

Good luck in the spring.

Just to set the record straight on the "who to give credit to" for the "stinking badges" quote.

Attributing "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges", to the move The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (directed by John Huston, starring Humphrey Bogart), is like attributing "Play it again, Sam" to Casablanca.

The actual line from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

The line "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges." comes from the moive Blazing Saddles (directed by Mel Brooks), in obvious homage to/parody of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

:D :D :cool:

Correct you are. Of course, the first appearance of any variant of the line was in the novel The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.(Published in 1927) According to Wikipedia, the quote reads:

""All right," Curtin shouted back. "If you are the police, where are your badges? Let's see them."

"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that sh!t-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."

OK, now you got me doing more internet searching...

An interesting fact (source: Wikipedia) is that the book was actually a German novel, written in German, and had the title Der Schatz der Sierra Madre (presumably The Treasure of the Sierra Madre in English...)

As side-tracks to threads go, this one is a bit different... ;)

The important question is:

Was anyone drinking beer in the novel and/or movie? :D:D

Well, it was a GERMAN novel, after all! :D

Now you got me started. A quote from Wikipedia: "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a 1927 novel by the mysterious German-English bilingual author B. Traven, in which two penurious Americans of the 1920s join with an old-timer, in Mexico, to prospect for gold. "

So, my investigation led me even farther. B. Traven is an interesting character(s), as is demonstrated in this article.

Very interesting. The question that intrigues me most in the wiki article is this one:

"Why was the identity of B. Traven concealed so carefully?"

And now, for a thorough and complete sidetracking of this thread, how about this for fun?

http://pl251.pairlitesite.com/badges/

Stinking Badges Home Page

But set in Mexico, so I expect tequila!

With the worm in the bottle. Tastes a hellva lot better that way. Whoo.