How were these handled?

Feedback from HS V umpires and area assignors please...

game yesterday - important league game, we're on defense, batter fouls a ball back.  Opposing team asks for CI (saying bat hit catcher's glove on swing.  Umpire asks my catcher if it did and makes the call only after he gets an answer from my C.  I went to ask and he told me he thought it hit the glove.  I said, that's fine but you made the call based on the answer from my C instead of what you thought/saw/heard.  No way to call a game.  He just shrugged. 

Am I wrong to think this is wrong?  I don't care about a call. I don't expect terrific performances from the usual HS crew and I'm usually the coach that leans hard on the tolerant side.  This just rubbed me as really unprofessional.  Thoughts?

Same game, we're on defense again, rundown between 2nd and 3rd, runner jumps around a tag and retrieves safely.  I don't think I've ever come out twice to discuss calls in one game before.  I asked calmly what he saw as the basepath.  He said "where the cleatmarks are".  There were, in fact, two clean sets of cleatmarks.  One was in the basepath and the other was clearly 6-8' outside of the first set.  The only possible scenario was the one in the path was fielder and the other was runner.  I pointed them out and asked how he saw that as being in the basepath.   Changed his tune... "all I know coach is he didn't leave the basepath".  Huh?

Rough day at the office.   Just want opinions on how these were handled from the guys who know how it's supposed to be handled.

Original Post

First on the CI. Personally, I would not do it that way but I have no problem with that approach. To me, it is similar to looking at a batter's hand to see if there is evidence the ball hit him instead of the bat. Just another tool to try and get the call right.

On the second scenario, there are a number of variables that makes it impossible to second guess his judgment. Because the runner was 6-8' away from his path going to back to 2B as he was going 3B has no bearing on whether he should be called out for being out of the basepath. He has 3' either way from HIS basepath AT the time a tag attempt is made. This is all his judgment. My guess is that he regretted using the "where the cleatmarks are" comment as soon as he said it. Not the best response he could have made but his judgment is the only one that counts.

Where was his partner for these situations?   I wouldn't ask the C about CI although I have to admit it's a bit tougher to call with the "sound" of the BBCOR bat... With BESR it was pretty clear <thump> or <tink>.  Unless I'm 100% sure I hear it, the C screams in pain, or the C glove ends up 10-20' down the line :-), I'm probably not calling it. If it's just a grazing and I miss it, I can live with that. If it was painfully obvious and I miss it, shame on me. Partner probably could not hear or see it either, but doesn't hurt to ask him if you're questioned. 

As for baseline violation, northtxump has a pretty good summary.  I've always tried to position myself for angles so as to not miss the tag. I also try to stay on the opposite/diagonal side of the play that my partner is in (think a rectangle and opposite corners).  If on the tag attempt the runner makes a juke so wildly obvious and it's on my side, then I'd have an out.  I've been taught to consider the fielder as well - was it a wild swing of the glove or was it a step and reach by the fielder *and* the runner moved further from that at the same moment.  If the runner was already outside of that reach, then was he making a direct line to the base?  Lots of stuff to decide in short order and for me has nothing to do with cleat marks - whose cleat marks are they, when were they made?  Does someone come out after every play and rake off all marks? (can I have that job ;-)).

I am stunned by him asking the catcher... I don't believe I have ever head of that. I am equally stunned by the catchers response.

I mean honestly "I think so" is the wrong response. It is not the catchers job to be honest, he shouldn't be asked the question to begin with and he certainly should have had the thought process to say "no way" as a response...to me nobody got it right in this example!

I once asked my son if he would answer an umpire's question honestly or take the best call. He said he would take the best call. Said its not his job to umpire. He added no umpire who ever punched him out on a bad call as a hitter asked him if the pitch was in the strike zone.

Thoughts?

RH Batter, in an attempt to gain edge on a pitcher with very low velocity, moves up in batter's box, front foot on line of box.  At contact, when front foot comes down, foot outside of batter's box (front line, closer to pitcher), hit to left.  Nothing said. 

Next inning (same pitcher), umpire tells 2 hole hitter, "I am getting your next hitter out on a technicality, watch..." (that in itself seems like strange communication).  RH Batter again moves up in box in next at bat, first cut swing and miss, front foot lands same spot, outside of batter's box, closer to pitcher.  Immediate "Batter Out" call, "batter outside of batter's box". 

Understand the rule but no warnings in this situation?   Just curious.

Prospect2020TX posted:

Thoughts?

RH Batter, in an attempt to gain edge on a pitcher with very low velocity, moves up in batter's box, front foot on line of box.  At contact, when front foot comes down, foot outside of batter's box (front line, closer to pitcher), hit to left.  Nothing said. 

Next inning (same pitcher), umpire tells 2 hole hitter, "I am getting your next hitter out on a technicality, watch..." (that in itself seems like strange communication).  RH Batter again moves up in box in next at bat, first cut swing and miss, front foot lands same spot, outside of batter's box, closer to pitcher.  Immediate "Batter Out" call, "batter outside of batter's box". 

Understand the rule but no warnings in this situation?   Just curious.

No warnings. Call the infraction if you see it, don't if you don't. I'm guessing he wasn't sure on the first PA, but was thinking to watch for it on the next one.

I do have an issue with the statement the umpire made. We are not out there anticipating what the next call will be. I don't have a problem making a mental note to watch out for it, but that needs to stay inside his head and not influence his perception of events.

Prospect2020TX posted:

Thoughts?

RH Batter, in an attempt to gain edge on a pitcher with very low velocity, moves up in batter's box, front foot on line of box.  At contact, when front foot comes down, foot outside of batter's box (front line, closer to pitcher), hit to left.  Nothing said. 

Next inning (same pitcher), umpire tells 2 hole hitter, "I am getting your next hitter out on a technicality, watch..." (that in itself seems like strange communication).  RH Batter again moves up in box in next at bat, first cut swing and miss, front foot lands same spot, outside of batter's box, closer to pitcher.  Immediate "Batter Out" call, "batter outside of batter's box". 

Understand the rule but no warnings in this situation?   Just curious.

Must have been a turf field...I'm sure your leadoff knows to get rid of the chalk lines.  

Umpires, foot has to be all completely out of the box, correct?  I know this is a tough call, b/c umpire should be focused on calling the pitch.

BTW Prospect, son will go tomorrow at 4:00 game.  He's excited I think.  I can never really tell.

Prospect2020TX posted:

Thoughts?

RH Batter, in an attempt to gain edge on a pitcher with very low velocity, moves up in batter's box, front foot on line of box.  At contact, when front foot comes down, foot outside of batter's box (front line, closer to pitcher), hit to left.  Nothing said. 

Next inning (same pitcher), umpire tells 2 hole hitter, "I am getting your next hitter out on a technicality, watch..." (that in itself seems like strange communication).  RH Batter again moves up in box in next at bat, first cut swing and miss, front foot lands same spot, outside of batter's box, closer to pitcher.  Immediate "Batter Out" call, "batter outside of batter's box". 

Understand the rule but no warnings in this situation?   Just curious.

Someone doesn't understand the rule.  It's only an out if the batter makes contact with the ball while the foot is on the ground and either (a) entirely outside the batters box (and the lines are part of the box), or (b) touching the plate (this part (b) applies in FED and NCAA rules only; not in OBR).

 

And, there is no warning (at least no official warning) on this.  (Also note that the requirements is to be entirely inside the box when getting ready for the pitch -- this is different (by the width of the foot) from the requirement when hitting the ball.) 

noumpere posted:
Prospect2020TX posted:

Thoughts?

RH Batter, in an attempt to gain edge on a pitcher with very low velocity, moves up in batter's box, front foot on line of box.  At contact, when front foot comes down, foot outside of batter's box (front line, closer to pitcher), hit to left.  Nothing said. 

Next inning (same pitcher), umpire tells 2 hole hitter, "I am getting your next hitter out on a technicality, watch..." (that in itself seems like strange communication).  RH Batter again moves up in box in next at bat, first cut swing and miss, front foot lands same spot, outside of batter's box, closer to pitcher.  Immediate "Batter Out" call, "batter outside of batter's box". 

Understand the rule but no warnings in this situation?   Just curious.

Someone doesn't understand the rule.  It's only an out if the batter makes contact with the ball while the foot is on the ground and either (a) entirely outside the batters box (and the lines are part of the box), or (b) touching the plate (this part (b) applies in FED and NCAA rules only; not in OBR).

 

And, there is no warning (at least no official warning) on this.  (Also note that the requirements is to be entirely inside the box when getting ready for the pitch -- this is different (by the width of the foot) from the requirement when hitting the ball.) 

I did not catch the "swing and miss" part.

Question on this topic... when a batter takes his stance, does the feet need to be entirely inside the box?  Say on a 3-0 count, the batter inches up to the plate  with heels on the line.  naturally, his arms and body will likely be over the plate, an inexperienced pitcher will likely throw the next pitch way outside the strike zone.   Is the batter considered legal in this instance?  Understand that if he gets hit while he is in the strike zone, it is a strike, not a HBP.

Thanks Dad - yes I know the lines are within the box.  But say a batter stands with his heels on the line and the rest of the foot clearly outside the box?  Is that considered "within" the batters box?  If no, why then if a batter swings, and his heel is on the line but the rest of the foot out is that legal?  This is of some considerable debate in our association.  It seems that one coach has taught his players to crowd the plate, so much so that only the heels are on the line.  For a HS player with size 12 - 13 feet, the batter is clearly over the plate.  To if 90% of the foot extends beyond the boundary of the lines on the batters box, is the batter really within the batters box?

NewUmpire posted:

Thanks Dad - yes I know the lines are within the box.  But say a batter stands with his heels on the line and the rest of the foot clearly outside the box?  Is that considered "within" the batters box?  If no, why then if a batter swings, and his heel is on the line but the rest of the foot out is that legal?  This is of some considerable debate in our association.  It seems that one coach has taught his players to crowd the plate, so much so that only the heels are on the line.  For a HS player with size 12 - 13 feet, the batter is clearly over the plate.  To if 90% of the foot extends beyond the boundary of the lines on the batters box, is the batter really within the batters box?

Before the pitch, both feet must be entirely within the box. On the swing, both feet must be at least partially in the box.

 Rule 7–3 article 2 .....  Hit the ball while either foot or knee is touching the ground completely outside the lines of the batters box or touching home plate.

 Penalty for infraction of article to the ball becomes did immediately and the batter is out. 

NewUmpire posted:

Is that considered "within" the batters box?  If no, why then if a batter swings, and his heel is on the line but the rest of the foot out is that legal?  This is of some considerable debate in our association.  

It's different because there are different requirements for "getting ready to hit" and for "hitting the ball."  Matt has the correct ruling.  For more references, see FED cases 7.3.2A, B, C, and D.

If after that it's really a matter of "some considerable debate" you need a new association.

How about this one....from a D1 game yesterday.  Runners on 2nd and 3rd.  DEEP fly to CF on a windy day.  CF looks like he is beat....turns and runs on a full sprint toward the fence....and makes a tremendous over the head, back handed catch.  2B umpire is about 25 feet out in the grass and calls the OUT.   Both runners had left so early that everyone in the place noticed.  The runner from 2B actually stopped about 15' toward 3B when the catch was made...hesitated like he was going to go back and then just kept going.  Runner from 3B was almost at home when the catch was made.  This would have been 3rd out.  Defensive team appeals to 2B.  2B umpire calls him safe....which he couldn't have seen as he was 25' out in the grass and made the OUT call on the catch.  Umpires don't even confer....2B ump tells defense that runner is safe and play continues.

1.  How do 3 umpires miss 2 guys blatantly leaving early

2. How does 2B ump make a call as to whether or not a runner on 2B that was directly behind him, left early or not...as he was watching a guy 200' away make a running catch at the wall??

Luckily it didn't matter...only one run scored in the inning...but it was a strange play all the way around.

It's not hard to break the rules on both feet in the box by the third inning. Often the lines are obliterated by then.

In a travel game an opposing coach tried to get my son called out after hitting a home run. The pitcher was slow with stuff. My son stood in the front of the box. The coach claimed my son strode out of the box. The umpire asked the coach to show where he was over the line. The lines were gone.

When I was in high school, I had the same event of CI occur. I hit the catchers hand and the PU didn't call CI until he asked me if I made contact with the catcher. I didn't feel anything but when we looked down at the catcher the catcher had his glove off and was holding his wrist in a sort of protective way. This is what clued the PU into calling the CI.

Visual proof of CI or even HBP makes the call easy.  I've know umpires who have asked players and for the largest part the players answer honestly....But putting the  player in the situation of not being truthful or hurting the team isn't something I support. 

its my job, I make the call.....with all the tools and evidence I have at hand... 

First; CI if you see it call it....to me I would NEVER ask a player.....it's my call !!! Second; The basepath is determined by where the runner started, not the "line" between the bases. I would ave asked you to wait a minute and confered with my partner. I, if I made the call would then I would give you my explanation. If the coach starts pointing to the "sport" where the cleatmarks are he would be in SEVERE jepordy of getting tossd!

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×