INT ??

[Thunderheads]

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22102985&topic_id=8879838&c_id=mlb

[johnnyg08]

Well, the ball hit the bat twice.

[Thunderheads]

Well, the ball hit the bat twice.

True ....With both feet planted in the box .....

[Mr Umpire]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

[Thunderheads]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory

Here ....it doesn't disucss the batters position

[Jimurray]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

Let's say he didn't know they changed the wording on 6.05 (g) and (h) a few years ago. The accepted interpretation before that was still a foul ball. Unless he had something intentional.

[Jimurray]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory

Here ....it doesn't disucss the batters position

Jeff, what book are you quoting from?

[Thunderheads]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory

Here ....it doesn't disucss the batters position

Jeff, what book are you quoting from?

Hi Jim, ... MLB online .... from the MLB site

[Jimurray]

I have a foul ball. I'd love to have heard that explanation and how he gets around both 6.03 and 6.05 (g) or (h). Did he judge him to no longer be in a legal batting position? Without PU's explanation of what he saw, I don't know how it is ruled INT. Maybe someone can help me out on why 6.03 does not apply.

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory

Here ....it doesn't disucss the batters position

Jeff, what book are you quoting from?

Hi Jim, ... MLB online .... from the MLB site

You gotta read the whole thing:

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory.

The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and

the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was

no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play. If

the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the

umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a

batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball;

[Thunderheads]

You gotta read the whole thing:

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory.

The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and

the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was

no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play. If

the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the

umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a

batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball;

I did read the entire thing ....(the version I googled)

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpireÂ’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play;

here is the link (note: this is NOT the downloadable version)

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/batter_6.jsp

Obviously the one you get when you go to MLB.com and go to DOWNLOADABLE RULES, you get the version you posted, I see it now and it's clear as day! Thanks!

[24sdad]

6.05

(g) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball;

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball.

Who know what PU thought happened. He missed it. It happens.

[Jimurray]

6.05

(g) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball;

(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball.

Who know what PU thought happened. He missed it. It happens.

He didn't miss it. He kicked the rule and sold it to Gonzalez.

[24sdad]

Well, you have me at a disadvantage as I never spoke to PU or read his explanation of the call. But, until I do one or the other, I am more inclined to believe he thought the batter was out of the box on the second contact, rather than believe a seasoned, MLB umpire doesn't know a pretty basic rule.

[Jimurray]

Well, you have me at a disadvantage as I never spoke to PU or read his explanation of the call. But, until I do one or the other, I am more inclined to believe he thought the batter was out of the box on the second contact, rather than believe a seasoned, MLB umpire doesn't know a pretty basic rule.

If you view the video he appears to be agreeing that the batter was in the box but his hand wasn't.

BTW, just for rules knowledge, FED had this interp long before OBR revised the rule wording.

8.4.1 SITUATION A

After bunting the ball, B3's bat, which is still in his hand, unintentionally strikes the ball a second time in fair territory while (a) he is still in the batter's box or ( B) he is outside the batter's box.

RULING: In (a), it is a foul ball. In ( B), the ball is dead and the batter is out.

cached

Link to Article Note Penalty Case Ruling Rule Comment Image Diagram Table Figure Exception

8.4.1 SITUATION B

B1 squares to bunt and hits the pitch. The batted ball bounces off the plate and hits B1's (a) leg or, ( B) bat a second time while B1 is holding the bat in the batter's box (no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box).

RULING: In (a), it is a foul ball. In ( B), the ball is foul unless, in the umpire's judgment, the ball was contacted intentionally, in which case the ball would be dead and B1 declared out.

That emoticon should read b. Don't know why that switched.

[Thunderheads]

how could there be any inclination that it was done intentionally?

[Umpire in Chief]

Well the end result is the call was missed whether it was because of misapplying the rule or if he errantly thought the batter was out of the box. We'll never know.

Culbreth is a good ump. Unfortunately bad calls happen.

[Lindsay]

Rules 6.05(g) and 6.05(h) were clarified prior to the 2010 season, specifically addressing balls that deflect to hit a batter or bat while the batter is in a legal position in the batter's box and has not intended to interfere with the course of the ball. MLB went from pages to the PDF download in 2010. Charlie Reliford was the umpire representative on the Playing Rules Committee at the time; that job has since fallen to Brian Gorman.

[dumbdumb]

OK, you have the original post, now what about this one.

And guess what, if you agree with the umpire, you would have gotten an ejection also.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22288555&c_id=mlb

[Lindsay]

I rather take an ejection for a correct call than one on the other end for an incorrect one. I believe Yost actually stepped up after the game and said that he looked at the replay and saw that the umpire was right and he was wrong. Good call by Iassogna.

[dumbdumb]

I rather take an ejection for a correct call than one on the other end for an incorrect one. I believe Yost actually stepped up after the game and said that he looked at the replay and saw that the umpire was right and he was wrong. Good call by Iassogna.

Oh yes, absolutely.

However, between the lines I was going a little deeper. As umpires we are charged with making the call. Many people get wrapped up in ejections and how good umpires do not have ejections, because they are making the correct call. There will be times when you make an incorrect call, you will be able to explain and calm down a manager and not have an ejection.

Other times you will make an outstanding call and you will explain and no matter your Dale Carnegie skills, you just cannot convince the manager your call is correct, nor can you calm them down.

Sometimes there is no correlation between the competence of the call and the competence and game management skills of the umpire.

You must umpire and let the "how great/not great" an umpire you are chips fall where they may.

[noumpere]

I dont know if anyone said that good umpires dont have ejections because as you said sometime SH*# happens. But if you have 15 ejections is a season and the rest of the umpires in your league dont have more than 3 then you need to take a look in the mirror (and I dont mean you dumbdumb, just you generically).

In an equal vein the umpire who has zero over 5 years needs to consider whether hes taking too much. Maybe and maybe not, but it needs to be loked at.

[dumbdumb]

I dont know if anyone said that good umpires dont have ejections because as you said sometime SH*# happens. But if you have 15 ejections is a season and the rest of the umpires in your league dont have more than 3 then you need to take a look in the mirror (and I dont mean you dumbdumb, just you generically).

In an equal vein the umpire who has zero over 5 years needs to consider whether hes taking too much. Maybe and maybe not, but it needs to be loked at.

Agreed. There could be a correlation but there doesn't have to be. Sometimes the correlation is true and sometimes it is not.

Sometimes, it is just because you have a Murphy's law year, but sometimes poor calls are the reason. It works both ways unfortunately.