Interference

[Thunderheads]

This is 6.05 (g), yes?  I need more coffee obviously

 

[stkjock]

left foot still in the box and right foot not yet touched fair ground, shouldn't that be a foul ball, or do  I need a coffee?

[Thunderheads]

left foot still in the box and right foot not yet touched fair ground, shouldn't that be a foul ball, or do  I need a coffee?

batter is out when his fair ball touches him before touching a fielder, that's 6.05g which I refer ....

What you're referring to ...I'm still searching for (....gets up and goes to the coffee room)

[stkjock]

batter is out when his fair ball touches him before touching a fielder, that's 6.05g which I refer ....

What you're referring to ...I'm still searching for (....gets up and goes to the coffee room)

yea, I looked that up before I commented (I always try to at least attempt an intelligent question ), however when I watched the vid I noticed the foot in the box.  

If you're hit in the box with a batted ball shouldn't it be foul?

[noumpere]

By rule I think they kicked it.  But, it happened so far "out" of the box, that I think the umpire had the front foot on the ground when the batter was hit.  That's what I had in real time, too.

 

And, I think the rule is 5.09(a)(7):

 

(7) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the

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

5.04(b)(5) (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;

Edited September 11, 2015 by noumpere

[Thunderheads]

By rule I think they kicked it.  But, it happened so far "out" of the box, that I think the umpire had the front foot on the ground when the batter was hit.  That's what I had in real time, too.

why can't I find the rule about "having one foot on the ground, etc...." .... ??

[noumpere]

why can't I find the rule about "having one foot on the ground, etc...." .... ??

6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) (6.06) A batter is out for illegal action when:

(1) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely

outside the batter’s box.

[Thunderheads]

 

6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) (6.06) A batter is out for illegal action when:

(1) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely

outside the batter’s box.

that's hitting a ball w/ the bat on a swing though ...

you have it w/ 6.03 in your prior post

 

[stkjock]

 

6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) (6.06) A batter is out for illegal action when:

(1) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely

outside the batter’s box.

so if no feet are on the ground outside the box, it should be a foul ball, which in this case was where his feet were.  I can't knock the call, as in real time it would be near impossible to get, however on vid it's seems clear.

[Thunderheads]

so if no feet are on the ground outside the box, it should be a foul ball, which in this case was where his feet were.  I can't knock the call, as in real time it would be near impossible to get, however on vid it's seems clear.

no ... 6.06 is not what applies here ......

[maven]

By rule I think they kicked it.  But, it happened so far "out" of the box, that I think the umpire had the front foot on the ground when the batter was hit.  That's what I had in real time, too.

 

And, I think the rule is 5.09(a)(7):

 

(7) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the

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

5.04(b)(5) (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 think he got it right. "Legal position in the batter's box" is defined by 5.04(b)(5): "The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box." Having both feet on the ground in the box exempts the batter from being called out under 5.09(a)(7).

In the video, you can see that the batter is not in legal position in the batter's box when he touches the fair batted ball. Correct call.

MLB is calling this more strictly in recent years, it seems to me.

[noumpere]

I think he got it right. "Legal position in the batter's box" is defined by 5.04(b)(5): "The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box." Having both feet on the ground in the box exempts the batter from being called out under 5.09(a)(7).

In the video, you can see that the batter is not in legal position in the batter's box when he touches the fair batted ball. Correct call.

MLB is calling this more strictly in recent years, it seems to me.

 

The question (and I don't disagree with the rest of your post), is once you have "legal position in the batter's box" when do you lose it?  Is it as soon as one foot leaves the ground?  When one foot completely "crosses the plane" of the box?  When one foot hits the ground outside the box?

 

For hitting a pitch, it's clear -- it's when the foot hits the ground outside the box.  Is the standard different for being hit by a batted ball?

[Thunderheads]

The question (and I don't disagree with the rest of your post), is once you have "legal position in the batter's box" when do you lose it?  Is it as soon as one foot leaves the ground?  When one foot completely "crosses the plane" of the box?  When one foot hits the ground outside the box?

 

For hitting a pitch, it's clear -- it's when the foot hits the ground outside the box.  Is the standard different for being hit by a batted ball?

I'm assuming it's not having both feet on the ground (see the still shot maven posted)

[Man_In_Black]

This was a really tough call in real time. There's an argument for both sides, but it's strictly judgment. I can live with the call. By the same token, if the PU had called it foul, I doubt that the Pirates would have made an issue of it.

[Jimurray]

I think he got it right. "Legal position in the batter's box" is defined by 5.04(b)(5): "The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box." Having both feet on the ground in the box exempts the batter from being called out under 5.09(a)(7).

In the video, you can see that the batter is not in legal position in the batter's box when he touches the fair batted ball. Correct call.

MLB is calling this more strictly in recent years, it seems to me.

They have been calling it that way since they changed the rule. The rule used to have no exemption for a double hit or being hit by the ball in the box. By interp we all called a foul ball when the batter got hit this way and one foot in the box was used. When MLB changed the rule and added the exemption for some reason they decided to use both feet in the box. I've seen it called that way consistently since the rule change and it's been noted here before. There is a question about both feet in the box or both feet on the ground in the box. I  think they require on the ground.

[maven]

The feet are not in the box (or out of the box) unless they are on the ground.

[Thunderheads]

The feet are not in the box (or out of the box) unless they are on the ground.

then where is Segura's right foot in the photo above?

[maven]

then where is Segura's right foot in the photo above?

Why, in the excluded middle, of course.

Like a football player in the air near the boundary, the foot is nowhere till it touches the ground. Being in the air is neither legal batting position nor illegal batting position.

[Thunderheads]

Why, in the excluded middle, of course.

Like a football player in the air near the boundary, the foot is nowhere till it touches the ground. Being in the air is neither legal batting position nor illegal batting position.

uhhmmmm .......ok!

[zoops]

The PU is pointing to the ground outside of the batter's box, so this would lead me to believe that he ruled that the foot was on the ground outside the box - certainly looked that way in real time.  Even the runner acted like he knew he was out. I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I don't think they call an out just for having a foot in the air.  In FED I believe one of their interps says that if one foot is in and one is out of the box on a play like this that it is a foul ball, which is ridiculous IMO.  I watched the video without volume as I'm at work and maybe the announcers talked about it - is this play reviewable?

[Jimurray]

The PU is pointing to the ground outside of the batter's box, so this would lead me to believe that he ruled that the foot was on the ground outside the box - certainly looked that way in real time.  I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I don't think they call an out just for having a foot in the air.  Even the runner acted like he knew he was out.  In FED I believe one of their interps says that if one foot is in and one is out of the box on a play like this that it is a foul ball, which is ridiculous IMO.  I watched the video without volume as I'm at work and maybe the announcers talked about it - is this play reviewable?

The FED interp came about this year from FED and conflicted with their own casplay. They said they caseplay would change. We will see this year if that is the case.

The umpire no doubt pointed but the rule is clear. I think we had a recent call where the batter did not have both feet in and the umpire thought he was hit and called him out. 

[DVA7130]

Sometimes it's really best not to overthink things.

 

I like the interference and the out.

[maven]

Sometimes it's really best not to overthink things.

 

I like the interference and the out.

Although "not overthinking" is a popular phrase, it does not provide much guidance to umpires who aim to get this call right reliably.

[basejester]

I think he got it right. "Legal position in the batter's box" is defined by 5.04(b)(5): "The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box." Having both feet on the ground in the box exempts the batter from being called out under 5.09(a)(7).

In the video, you can see that the batter is not in legal position in the batter's box when he touches the fair batted ball. Correct call.

MLB is calling this more strictly in recent years, it seems to me.

I don't think that's the standard anybody intended.  If his right foot lands within the box and then the ball hits him, will you have a foul ball?  So, depending on the instant it hits him, it would be foul (right away), then interference (as pictured), and then foul again (after the right foot lands).

It's normal for the back foot to be off the ground at contact.  If Pujols drives this pitch into his front foot, surely we're not getting interference.

 

[Jimurray]

Although "not overthinking" is a popular phrase, it does not provide much guidance to umpires who aim to get this call right reliably.

Before OBR changed the rule, FED only had it codified with a rule and interp that as long as no foot was entirely out of the box it was a foul ball. Per 2008 BRD, OBR agreed with that interp per Fitzpatrick in 2000. To me, that is the most reliable way to call it in any code.

But FED muddied the waters this year and OBR added the "legally in the box" to the rule sometime between 2008 and 2011. 

 OBR