umpire_scott

"Crowding the plate" is legal. Having any part of your foot outside the outer edge of the box is not legal. In the game I was watching I was probably incorrect to say 1/2 their foot was outside of the box. But the tips of their toes were an inch or two away from home plate. At least 2-3 inches of their feet were completely out of the box. So they were clearly in violation of the rule. I always enforce this and have had no issue with it because it is supported by the rule. Now if the lines have been brushed away and I can't make an absolute determination then I'm letting it go.

Yes but I think the impact on the pitcher is more visual than anything else. Once he begins his pitching motion I think the batters position relative to the plate is less significant. When the batter is crowding the plate prior to the pitch it visually impedes the pitcher from pitching to the inside part of the plate as in many instances the knees and elbows are actually in the strike zone. And unfortunately many umpires won't call a strike on a HBP that is in zone. I've done it on a few occasions and have caught hell from the player, coaches, and fans for it because they cannot see what I can see. And many umpires that I have worked with do not enforce the "starting position" rule.

I was watching the LLWS regionals yesterday for the Southwest Region. I believe it was the batters for Lake St. Charles, Louisiana were standing with at least half their feet outside of the white lines of the batters box to crowd the plate. This was very effective as the Texas-East pitcher was having a great deal of difficulty throwing strikes. I've always interpreted the verbiage in the rules manual to be that both feet must be entirely in batters box at the time of the pitch, so as PU I would not have allowed this. I have been "corrected" by many umpires I work with who interpret the batter box rule to be the same at TOP as it is at TOH that as long as any part of their foot is touching any part of the box they are legal. They OBR rules verbiage is as such: (5) (6.03) The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box. APPROVED RULING: The lines defining the box are within the batter’s box. I've felt that since it says "within" then that means that no part of the feet cannot be outside of the box at TOP. I have two questions: 1. What are others interpretations of this verbiage and/or is their an accepted case-play interpretation for this? 2. Does little league have rules verbiage that differs from OBR concerning this?

Play 65-83 NCAA and OBR only. A slow curve hits B1’s arm in front of the plate. B1 makes no attempt to avoid the pitch. Ruling: The ball is dead. If in the umpire’s judgment the pitch would have been a strike, it is called as such. In any case, B1 is not awarded first. The underlined piece is the interpretation verbiage I'm speaking of. It is speaking of a "slow curve" and say "would have been a strike". It doesn't say "if in the umpire's judgement the pitch WAS a strike". So to me this clearly indicated that when a batter interferes with a pitch intentionally before it gets to the plate then the umpire must determine whether it WOULD have been a strike or not. And as far as I'm concerned I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the pitcher not the batter that purposely interfered. Now if he caught a pitch that was clearly a ball then it's a ball. But if I believe it was breaking into the zone and the batter kept that from happening, then I believe calling that pitch a strike is supported by this interpretation.

Thank you Senor Azul. So there is interpretation verbiage to allow for a pitch that "would have been a strike" to be called a strike if the batter intentionally interfered with the ball.

I agree that if he did it more than once I would say something. But if I were the defensive coach I would have a huge problem with a batter interfering with a pitch that had a chance at being called a strike if not for the batter interfering with it. I would feel like a real tool if I explained to him "Sorry coach but unless it's a strike it's a ball, and since the ball never got to home plate it's not a strike. If he does it again I'll warn or eject, but for this pitch it's a ball".

But that would imply that batters can just reach out in front of the plate and allow pitches to hit them, and they would legally be balls because they have not reached the plate yet.. I thought there was verbiage about not allowing a pitch to enter the strike zone?

What basis do you have for calling it a ball if it never got to the plate at all? That would seem to imply that all batters can catch pitches before they get to the catcher so they don't get to the plate and potentially become strikes.

"Whack, get out!". I like it. Bumper Sticker?

I'm not sure what part of what I said is irrelevant? I just don't think it's my job to determine the ability to be hit that a pitch has. So much of that is determined by the batters stance in relation to the plate. If a batter stood in the middle of the box then every pitch 1-2 balls inside would be hittable. If the batter stood closer to the plate to reach outside pitches then those pitches 1-2 balls inside become much less hittable. So by giving less inside and more outside I'm encouraging batters to crowd the plate. And then punishing the pitcher by not giving him that inside area. For this reason I agree with noumpere and I try to give the same on each side. While I say this I probably do tend to give a little more on the outer edge, but not as much as I see other umpires do.

"Could have been hit" and "Could have been driven" are two different things. Pitchers are searching for the pitch that is hit but not driven. That's where "pitch to contact comes from". You want to get the hitter to swing at a pitch they can hit but not drive.

I know exactly what you are saying, but it also frustrates me that we don't reward good pitches when we consider whether they can "get good wood on it". Isn't the point of the pitcher to find those spots where the batter can't put good wood on it? I try hard, especially with batters that crowd the plate, to give the pitcher that high in pitch as long as it does fit in the book zone. Most umpires I see will give 2+ balls on outside pitches, but barely give a 1/4 of a ball on inside pitches. With the way many players crowd the plate to reach balls out off the plate I think it is imperative to give the pitchers something in off the plate.

I can concur first hand what Matt says here. I literally can remember thinking "where is my zone and did that hit it" years ago and now I mentally use the "did that look like a strike" burden of proof. There are a lot of things that go into "does it look like a strike", including what the catcher does, if the pitcher hit his spot, etc. At the end of the day calling an exact book zone below college can create a lot of problems with game flow. Giving the pitchers a little off the plate if they hit their spot moves the game along. And as long as you are consistent with it you won't get many complaints. I get far fewer complaints about my zone now than I did when it was smaller and I tried to call it exactly by the book.

Doing a little league game several years ago in Phoenix. Had a fan heckling me constantly. I ignored most of it, but when it started to become a distraction (players were actually turning and looking at him and he was right by me), I called "time" and inquired about which team he was with as I was going to speak to the coach about keeping his fans under control. The fan says "I'm not with either team, I just came to watch the games". So tell him that he needs to quiet down or I'll get the site director to make him leave. He looks at me flabbergasted and says "I was just having fun. Isn't heckling the umpire a part of baseball?".

Look on the bright side he's acknowledging that you can have any zone you want.

First batter of the game in an 18U tournament. First pitch is a strike right down the middle. Next two pitches are picked off the dirt by F2 and are just off the plate as well. Then I think a foul ball evens the count up. Fifth pitch is also picked off the dirt by F2 filling the count up. Ball 4 comes in off the plate and is once again almost in the dirt. As the batter trots to first a mom to my left says "Cmon blue you're squeezing us".

Pitch comes in just below the knees over the middle of the plate. I call "strike", batter says "where was that, blue?" I say "over the plate". He says "I mean the location". I say "over the plate at the knees". I mean he knew it was the low part of the zone. It's so annoying when players question things and have no idea how to do it.

Got it. Thanks for clearing it up.

So Maven are you in agreement that if he fully disengaged while stepping to second and then feinted to third it would be okay? I sometimes have interpretation issues with the step-off and the "all one move" interpretations. In that video you posted of Latos I believe being called for a balk most construed it was "all one move" and stated that a step-off had to be immediate and with only that foot moving. So on the OP for this thread I'm envisioning F1 spinning towards second and then stepping towards second with his pivot foot disengaging on the step. Or does this move constitute all one move that was initiated from the rubber?

What noumpere said makes sense. It all depends on when the feint was made. OP already said the bases were loaded so there was a runner on second. So I would assume he would have to spin towards second, step towards second and completely come off the rubber, then fake to third, otherwise it would be construed as one move that started from the rubber and included a fake to third, which of course is a balk.

This is a tournament that uses modified OBR. They probably didn't even factor in for this situation being different in OBR and HS. They do allow the following lineups: Bat 9 play 9; Bat 9 play 9 with a DH; Bat 10 with an EH, or bat your lineup. I guess since it does not specify and it's "OBR unless specified otherwise" then I would go with the OBR DH rules.

For some reason I always question myself in lineup scenarios when a DH is used. I'll read the rule book, feel confident that I've got it down, and then in the heat of the moment question myself. So here was today's situation. The team was batting nine with a DH for the F1. HC comes to me between innings and says he is taking his pitcher out and his F3 is going in to pitch. Then his F7 was moving to First base. And a player was coming off the bench to move to left field. Since F1 did not have a spot in the batting order and was leaving the game this kills the DH correct and removes him from the game? So I had the new player come in and take the DH's spot in the batting order and then the former F7 and F3 who are know F3 and F1 respectively maintain their spots in the order and are simply position changes? Did I get this right?

I don't see giving trophies to everyone as even remotely similar to this. When was the last time you saw an IBB mucked up at the college or MLB level? When something like that happens with 99% accuracy then maybe it is just a waste of time. And baseball has had a long standing issue with length of games for viewers. I guess as a coach instead of risking a pitcher throwing the ball away or some OOO getting the catcher for a balk for moving out of the catcher's box to quickly the coach could just have the pitcher hit the batter. That pretty much eliminates the threat of runners advancing. We know what they want to do and they execute at probably far greater than 99% accuracy. So let's do away with the formalities and just give them first base.

Rich, You really think that a third option that he can't see the zone from where he's at and/or it trying to intimidate the umpire into giving his pitchers calls is not on the table? You are either giving coaches way too much credit or not enough.

And I think it is imperative that coaches are made aware of this. It is probably not appropriate for umpires to make them aware during a game situation, but I do believe many coaches truly think that when an umpire rightfully declines "getting help" they are being stubborn and when one does go to discuss it they are being professional and humble. That is how the coaches and parents perceive it. So there is some value to going to your partner talking about who is buying beer after the game and then sticking with the call. But the detriment this causes is far more than the value of pacifying a coach. Coaches need to be aware that umpires are trained to only go for help if they need it. The umpire in the best position to make the call is the one making it. And the coaches and parents I'm talking about are below high school level for the most part. Coaches that get paid already know these things and they are trying to get an edge when they ask an umpire to get help.