another new one

[JohnnySpot]

OBR

No runners on. Catcher recognizes right-handed batter, in establishing his stance, has his right foot outside the batter’s box. After the first pitch for “Ball 1,” the catcher brings this to the attention of the plate umpire who monitors the situation. Recognizing he might have a problem the PU reminds the batter to keep

both feet inside the box. On the next pitch batter swings and fouls off the pitch. During

the swing, the plate umpire realizes that the batter did, in fact, have his right foot on the

ground completely outside the box when he made contact with the ball. However, while

swinging at the pitch, the catcher tipped his bat before the batter made contact with the ball.

What is the correct ruling?

[Umpire in Chief]

Just a guess, but I think I'd have to enforce the CI. This more than likely occured before the batter made contact with the ball which then protects the batter to first.

Now put a little spin on in he hist one in the gap for a double after the CI but still had his foot out of the box then Id have an appealable play that the batter made contact while out of the box.

[BrianC14]

Send him to first, CI.

[JohnnySpot]

BrianC and UIC...Isn't it possible that IF the batter wasn't out of the box the CI would not have occurred?

The ruling on the above play is the batter is out and the CI is negated

[JohnnySpot]

Just a guess, but I think I'd have to enforce the CI. This more than likely occured before the batter made contact with the ball which then protects the batter to first.

Now put a little spin on in he hist one in the gap for a double after the CI but still had his foot out of the box then Id have an appealable play that the batter made contact while out of the box.

As far as your twist goes, it doesn't matter if the ball is fair, foul, double, pop out ...whatever....6.06 (a) comment says "If a batter hits ball fair or foul while out of the batter's box, he shall be called out."

This is not an appeal play

[LMSANS]

I would have CI also. As far as the twist, it can be a judgement thing. If you judge that the foot position caused the CI then You would have the batter hitting out of the box. And you have to deal with what comes next from the coach.

I'm not sure that this would be an easy determination to make. There is a lot going on in a short amount of time and little space. Most umpires will "miss" the foot position. Those lines get rubbed out very early in the game.

[JohnnySpot]

I agree, Larry, that this is a tough call. One thing I will disagree with is a lot of umpires would miss this....I've had guys start out of the box a couple of times last year and when I set up something doesn't 'feel' right' and I've been able to fix it...I think other guys feel the same way..let me know

[BrianC14]

To me it would tough to see (and thus call) that his foot is out upon contact with the ball - and of course, in the sitch, F2 creates the interference... that certainly would have occurred before contact with the ball.

Thus, I have CI.

[jim knight]

Kinda a knotty situation... by rule I have batter out but in real play it would have to be very obvious that the batter was out of box AND to me the act of being out of the box caused the CI... like stepping back / if you call the batter out of box you need to call him out. If in your judgement he may not have been out then you can go with CI... or get ready for the possible protest.

These questions are good but I have never had this play be a problem in over 30 years... if I did I sold it one way or the other so well that no one questioned it.

[AllanA]

I would call CI on this. If the HC comes out to confront me, I'll just tell him sorry its hard to watch the feet and the pitch at the same time. I wouldn't think he would want me to be watching the feet. This would be a tough call though. Just have to rule the best you can. I may even call time and confer with my partner just to see if he saw what I saw. I try to get the call right.

Allan

[jim knight]

I am with you with the CI but in the OP it was noted that the out of the box situation came up earlier in the count and the plate guy issued a semi-warning by reminding the batter about his foot / so if you have CI you have to stick with the old "I didnt see the foot" story and sell it / because of the reminder to the batter you can go with the "You are out of the box and out story" either way it will work... I have had simular plays...

[UmpJM]

...

The ruling on the above play is the batter is out and the CI is negated

Johnny,

Cite please?

JM

[mstaylor]

If I am sure he is stepping back then I am negating the CI and calling the batter out. If the batter is striding forward with his front foot then the back should be stationary. If you have already warned him and it happens again then most likely he is trying to draw the CI call.

If you're not sure then let the coach have his choice on the CI.

[Dragon29]

OBR

No runners on. Catcher recognizes right-handed batter, in establishing his stance, has his right foot outside the batter’s box. After the first pitch for “Ball 1,” the catcher brings this to the attention of the plate umpire who monitors the situation. Recognizing he might have a problem the PU reminds the batter to keep both feet inside the box. On the next pitch batter swings and fouls off the pitch. During the swing, the plate umpire realizes that the batter did, in fact, have his right foot on the ground completely outside the box when he made contact with the ball. However, while swinging at the pitch, the catcher tipped his bat before the batter made contact with the ball.

What is the correct ruling?

OK - No-one's addressed the 1st question I had when I read the OP. (See bold-faced text above) Would you do this? To me, this seems as if you're coaching. I don't believe I would mention it to the batter, nor would I comment on it if it was pointed out to me by F2. I'd pay attention, but I wouldn't say anything.

[UmpJM]

Dragon,

If you notice the batter setting up with his feet not entirely within the batter's box, it is proper to instruct him to take a legal position. It's not coaching, it's umpiring.

JM

[BrianC14]

Dragon,

If you notice the batter setting up with his feet not entirely within the batter's box, it is proper to instruct him to take a legal position. It's not coaching, it's umpiring.

JM

Agreed.

[Dragon29]

Dragon,

If you notice the batter setting up with his feet not entirely within the batter's box, it is proper to instruct him to take a legal position. It's not coaching, it's umpiring.

JM

Yeah - now that I re-read the OP more carefully (sorry!) I agree - if he's setting up that way. If he's striding into it, I wouldn't say anything. Thanks for pointing that out.

[mazzamouth]

This is so funny, I had this exact play happen to me in a D-III game.

Its the 3rd inning and the crappy job the home team did on chalking the batters box the lines are now gone. In the 1st inning the batters had dug in right at the bottom of the box, So i had taken notice at this...no big deal..

Well in the top of the 3rd inning R2 no outs, the lines are no gone and I had a CI play, i called it, let the play happen it was a ground ball to F4 who threw to 1st for the out, well I called time awarded the BR 1st for CI, made the runner stay @ 2nd ( cause there was no force on the play). Well the HC wants to ask me what had happen, So i told him and then he wants top point out that the batter was out of the batters box ( but like I said these guys had dug in a hole and this batter had his back foot in the hole) So he was legally in the box ( or where it would have been) So I told him we had CI and he said that the batter was out of the box and I tried to tell him that the batter was in, and his guys were standing in the same spot. Well he was ok with the call after I explained it to him.

Sorry for the long post, But i think its funny that this was asked.. So with that being said..... I have CI...LOL:HD:

[NFUA_44]

OK, a little late to the show here, but I'm just digging through looking at situations so what the hey.

I've got the CI as do many others, UNLESS, there is some distinct form of intent that I can discern from the batter trying to draw the call, and in so doing stepping out of the box. Now mechanically I have always found that even with marginal or very poor lines a Batter who meets all the criteria of being out of the box is usually a BIG BOLD OOPS CAN'T MISS IT call. Not to mention that it's one of those calls that you really need to be sold on before opening the can that will start that sh**storm.