The "batters box"

[umpire_scott]

I would think that based on mine and others responses on this thread you would know, but here goes:

 

Rule on him not being in a "legal batting position" due to his feet not being "within the batter's box".

[umpire_scott]

 

 

If he really is claiming that the batter can take a position with part of the foot outside the line of the batters box then yes he is wrong (by rule).

 

More likely of course is that one of the students mixed up the message that he was sending.

 

NO! The instructor (which I will take his word for more than yours) (No insult intended) specifically said that if the heel is touching the line as he stands there waiting for the pitcher to pitch then he is in the box. He even mentioned the shoes sizes and everything.

 

I agree with that.  The lines are part of the box.  But if the heel is beyond the line then the batter is out of the box (by rule).

 

 

Now I'm confused.  What if all of the foot, except the heel is outside of the lines?

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

If he really is claiming that the batter can take a position with part of the foot outside the line of the batters box then yes he is wrong (by rule).

 

More likely of course is that one of the students mixed up the message that he was sending.

 

NO! The instructor (which I will take his word for more than yours) (No insult intended) specifically said that if the heel is touching the line as he stands there waiting for the pitcher to pitch then he is in the box. He even mentioned the shoes sizes and everything.

 

I agree with that.  The lines are part of the box.  But if the heel is beyond the line then the batter is out of the box (by rule).

 

 

Now I'm confused.  What if all of the foot, except the heel is outside of the lines?

 

The whole foot being out is illegal but I still would not say anything.

[LMSANS]

 

 

I think this is a nit I don't want to pick.

 

I agree that in 90% of the cases I would never say a word.  But when it's close to the plate as was in my case then I rule on it.  In the case of the front, back, or outside of the box there is no other benchmark to go by (when the lines have been brushed away), but on the inside you have the plate.

 

Rule on what?

 

Rolo, take a look at the BRD, it's the same ruling (and interpretation) that Scott is talking about...

 

*Note 51: It is legal for a batter to assume a position with the heel or toe of his foot (feet) on the line of the box as long as the remaining portion of his foot (feet) is not touching outside the box."

 

Also...

"Off. Interp 50-47; PBUC MANUAL:  The umpire shall instruct the batter to remain within the lines of the box "if [the infraction is] brought to the attention of the umpire."  Failure to comply subjects the offender to ejection. {3.17}.

 

14u, I'm not nitpicking, it's a safety thing with rule backing.

[noumpere]

If ANY of the foot (just the heel, just the toes, just the side) or (obviously all the foot)is outside the box, then the batter is not in a legal position to receive the pitch.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

I think this is a nit I don't want to pick.

 

I agree that in 90% of the cases I would never say a word.  But when it's close to the plate as was in my case then I rule on it.  In the case of the front, back, or outside of the box there is no other benchmark to go by (when the lines have been brushed away), but on the inside you have the plate.

 

Rule on what?

 

Rolo, take a look at the BRD, it's the same ruling (and interpretation) that Scott is talking about...

 

*Note 51: It is legal for a batter to assume a position with the heel or toe of his foot (feet) on the line of the box as long as the remaining portion of his foot (feet) is not touching outside the box."

 

Also...

"Off. Interp 50-47; PBUC MANUAL:  The umpire shall instruct the batter to remain within the lines of the box "if [the infraction is] brought to the attention of the umpire."  Failure to comply subjects the offender to ejection. {3.17}.

 

14u, I'm not nitpicking, it's a safety thing with rule backing.

 

Thanks Larry,

 

I will look these up and read them. I see what you are saying but I'm just going by what I was told at the clinic. I will definitely take it into consideration.

[grayhawk]

Rolo - the guy at the clinic needs to have his head examined.  Seriously, this is VERY basic stuff and stuff that you know already.  If even a smidgen of the batter's toe is over the outside boundary of the line, then he is technically not in a legal batting position.

 

As to Scott's question - I think it's okay to call time and tell the batter that he needs to be in the box, especially if it's egregious (one inch from the plate) like in your example.  He's getting a significant advantage not intended by the rules, and should be corrected.

[JaxRolo]

Rolo - the guy at the clinic needs to have his head examined.  Seriously, this is VERY basic stuff and stuff that you know already.  If even a smidgen of the batter's toe is over the outside boundary of the line, then he is technically not in a legal batting position.

 

As to Scott's question - I think it's okay to call time and tell the batter that he needs to be in the box, especially if it's egregious (one inch from the plate) like in your example.  He's getting a significant advantage not intended by the rules, and should be corrected.

 

I had so much information thrown at me over the last week that maybe I am not looking at it correctly.

[Mad Mike]

@umpire_scott I agree with you.

 

At the time of the pitch, the batter is supposed to have both feet entirely within the box.  The lines are within the box.

 

On making contact, both feet cannot be entirely outside the box.  Touching a line is fine.

 

J/R says this, in essence, for all rule sets.  Also discussed in the same way in the BRD,  The rules are essentially the same for FED, and NCAA.  

 

Now, before the pitch, I don't really pay much attention to this, particularly if the lines are erased.  Same with contact.  BUT, if I see a batter with his toes obviously close to the plate before a pitch, I tell him to fix it.  At the 14U level and below this is a safety issue, to my mind.  Some of those batters don't even seem to be aware they are too close.  I also fix it if a coach or parent or anyone points it out.  I don't want to be the guy on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

 

 

Good discussion here. I just wanted to point out that the rules are not the same between FED and OBR. If you step on the plate in FED, you are ruled out. See 7-3-2.

[noumpere]

 

@umpire_scott I agree with you.

 

At the time of the pitch, the batter is supposed to have both feet entirely within the box.  The lines are within the box.

 

On making contact, both feet cannot be entirely outside the box.  Touching a line is fine.

 

J/R says this, in essence, for all rule sets.  Also discussed in the same way in the BRD,  The rules are essentially the same for FED, and NCAA.  

 

Now, before the pitch, I don't really pay much attention to this, particularly if the lines are erased.  Same with contact.  BUT, if I see a batter with his toes obviously close to the plate before a pitch, I tell him to fix it.  At the 14U level and below this is a safety issue, to my mind.  Some of those batters don't even seem to be aware they are too close.  I also fix it if a coach or parent or anyone points it out.  I don't want to be the guy on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

 

 

Good discussion here. I just wanted to point out that the rules are not the same between FED and OBR. If you step on the plate in FED, you are ruled out. See 7-3-2.

 

That's of course only if you hit the ball and all of this discussion has been (or should have been - there was some confusion earlier) about "preparing to receive the pitch" or whatever the rules call it.

 

And, that same restriction is in place in college ball too.

[HeadHunterLA]

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

[umpire_scott]

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

[HeadHunterLA]

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

[SoCal Lurker]

 

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

 

 

"Booger"?  That's about a 12" difference in what is legal!!

[umpire_scott]

 

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

 

 

So you would let a player stand with the front of his shoe almost touching home plate?  The booger I don't want to pick is when a pitch comes in a ball or so off the plate, that I might normally call a strike, but it hits the batter in the shin.  Well there is no way it can hit their shin, and be over the plate, unless most of their foot is on the plate.  So now I have to give him first base as a ball not in the strike zone hit the batter.  That gives the batter an advantage that I'm not comfortable with.

[HeadHunterLA]

 

 

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

 

 

"Booger"?  That's about a 12" difference in what is legal!!

 

How is that a 12 inch difference?  By that definition if a hitter is crowding the plate and has any part of his foot outside of the line he is illegal.  

[noumpere]

It's a 12" difference because that is the length of the foot.  And I might just be confused here, but in one post you seem to say your not picking that booger and in the next your saying its illegal.

[Mike Prince]

 

 

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

 

 

So you would let a player stand with the front of his shoe almost touching home plate?  The booger I don't want to pick is when a pitch comes in a ball or so off the plate, that I might normally call a strike, but it hits the batter in the shin.  Well there is no way it can hit their shin, and be over the plate, unless most of their foot is on the plate.  So now I have to give him first base as a ball not in the strike zone hit the batter.  That gives the batter an advantage that I'm not comfortable with.

 

 

I've got a dead ball strike here, not a HBP.  If you get that inside pitch (your booger) and it hits the batter get the strike you would normally call.  If he moves to avoid and still gets hit then it's probably not a strike anyway.  Trying to predetermine the batter's intentions leads to troubles IMO.

[HeadHunterLA]

 

 

 

I've always been taught that the lines are part of the box.  I had a catcher complain just last week that a batter was crowding home plate and out of the box, however his feet were on the line and that is all I need.  

 

"On the line" is ambiguous for the purpose of this discussion though.  It's been proven with rule book and case book evidence that if any part of his foot extends beyond the outside of the line then he is not in a legal batting position.  So he could be "on the line" and legal or he could be "on the line" and illegal.  It all depends on where the rest of his foot is.

 

 

So on the line with rest of foot inside box is legal and on the line with rest of foot outside the box is illegal?  I'm not picking that booger.

 

 

So you would let a player stand with the front of his shoe almost touching home plate?  The booger I don't want to pick is when a pitch comes in a ball or so off the plate, that I might normally call a strike, but it hits the batter in the shin.  Well there is no way it can hit their shin, and be over the plate, unless most of their foot is on the plate.  So now I have to give him first base as a ball not in the strike zone hit the batter.  That gives the batter an advantage that I'm not comfortable with.

 

No I would not let a batter stand with his foot almost touching home plate.  Big difference between that scenario and a a couple of toes over the line.  Oh, and out of the 100 or so games I have done this year I can count on one hand the number of times I have had any issue with the batters box, so there is that.

[noumpere]

This I think is what we are talking about, and it is illegal to take this stance (by rule) -- the only "penalty" though is to move the batter into the box.  If you didn't and the batter hit the ball without moving the feet (ignoring the baseball impracicalness of that) the play would stand.

 

 

 

NOT Legal

 

The batter is not legally in position.

His toes are outside the lines.

As the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter's feet must be WITHIN the lines. (Rule 6.03)

Legal

Both batters are in a legal position to await a pitch.
They are within the box.

[HeadHunterLA]

This I think is what we are talking about, and it is illegal to take this stance (by rule) -- the only "penalty" though is to move the batter into the box.  If you didn't and the batter hit the ball without moving the feet (ignoring the baseball impracicalness of that) the play would stand.

 

 

 

NOT Legal

 

The batter is not legally in position.

His toes are outside the lines.

As the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter's feet must be WITHIN the lines. (Rule 6.03)

Legal

Both batters are in a legal position to await a pitch.

They are within the box.

Source?

[JHSump]

This I think is what we are talking about, and it is illegal to take this stance (by rule) -- the only "penalty" though is to move the batter into the box.  If you didn't and the batter hit the ball without moving the feet (ignoring the baseball impracicalness of that) the play would stand.

 

 

 

NOT Legal

 

The batter is not legally in position.

His toes are outside the lines.

As the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter's feet must be WITHIN the lines. (Rule 6.03)

Legal

Both batters are in a legal position to await a pitch.

They are within the box.

A picture (or three) is worth a thousand words...or at least 40 posts.  

[LMSANS]

 

This I think is what we are talking about, and it is illegal to take this stance (by rule) -- the only "penalty" though is to move the batter into the box.  If you didn't and the batter hit the ball without moving the feet (ignoring the baseball impracicalness of that) the play would stand.

 

 

 

NOT Legal

 

The batter is not legally in position.

His toes are outside the lines.

As the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter's feet must be WITHIN the lines. (Rule 6.03)

Legal

Both batters are in a legal position to await a pitch.

They are within the box.

Source?

 

The BRD has been provided as a source...you can track it from there.  All 3 levels agree.

 

What is the big deal with saying "back up a bit."?

[HeadHunterLA]

 

 

This I think is what we are talking about, and it is illegal to take this stance (by rule) -- the only "penalty" though is to move the batter into the box.  If you didn't and the batter hit the ball without moving the feet (ignoring the baseball impracicalness of that) the play would stand.

 

 

 

NOT Legal

 

The batter is not legally in position.

His toes are outside the lines.

As the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter's feet must be WITHIN the lines. (Rule 6.03)

Legal

Both batters are in a legal position to await a pitch.

They are within the box.

Source?

 

The BRD has been provided as a source...you can track it from there.  All 3 levels agree.

 

What is the big deal with saying "back up a bit."?

 

There is no big deal to saying back up a bit, that is the proper thing to do.  I was just wondering where the pics came from so i could take a look to see if they had anything else that would prove helpful.  Not questioning the validity of the post or interpretation.

[maven]

Could the confusion stems from the lines being different in baseball compared to football or basketball?

 

In many other sports, the inside edge of the line marks the edge of the playing surface, and to step on any part of the line puts a player OOB.

 

In baseball, the outside edge of the line marks the edge of the defined area, and stepping on the line puts a player "inbounds" (in the running lane, in fair territory, in the batters box, etc.).

 

Hope that helps! It's a lot of posts for a pretty straightforward rule...