Ball hit twice

[Thunderheads]

Well, you don't see this everyday....

http://m.mlb.com/video/v1001937383/?query=umpire

[stkjock]

that's an odd one for sure.

 

Properly officiated?

[johnpatrick]

Tough to see in real time, but I think the announcers had it right.  Still in the box, foul ball.  I think in real time I'd have made the same call.

[Jimurray]

50 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Tough to see in real time, but I think the announcers had it right.  Still in the box, foul ball.  I think in real time I'd have made the same call.

Both feet were not on the ground in the box. He's out in OBR only..

[Rich Ives]

5.04(b )(5) (6.03) The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet
within the batter’s box.

Does it say :on the ground? - No.

Were they within the box? - Yes.

(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;

(8) 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 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;

[johnpatrick]

19 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Both feet were not on the ground in the box. He's out in OBR only..

This was just AFTER he hit the ball the second time.

 

temp.pdf

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, johnpatrick said:

 

This was just AFTER he hit the ball the second time.

One foot was in the air when the bat hit the ball. Can't trust announcers but they agree with me. While you could use @Rich Ives argument that the foot in the air was still "in the box", it was not called that way today and in all but one instance in thepast that I know of in MLB. The one instance not called that way might be a judgement or a dissagreement with the interp when the rule was changed. Most of us would like to call it the old way and this would be a foul ball. It isn't being called that way in MLB.

[johnpatrick]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

...the interp when the rule was changed

What was the rule/interp change?

 

[Jimurray]

51 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

What was the rule/interp change?

 

Before the rule was rewritten there was no protection in the OBR rule for a batter in or leaving the box being touched by a batted ball or a "double hit". We only had knowledge of an unwritten interp that was similar to how it was ruled in FED or NCAA. In fact some umpires who had the book but no other guidance would call the double hit out. When the rule was rewritten they added the proviso of a legal position and defined it. So far as I can tell a batter with both feet in the box is protected but one who is leaving the box and has one foot in the air is not in MLB. Perhaps your MiLB acquaintance could enlighten us. 

[Rich Ives]

You can't be guilty if an illegally batted ball until your foot hits the ground outside the box so you must still be in the box until it does.

[Jimurray]

43 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

You can't be guilty if an illegally batted ball until your foot hits the ground outside the box so you must still be in the box until it does.

Keep rationalizing. Maybe you'll convince the MLB umps that are calling it. BTW, LL never rewrote 6.05(g) nor added 6.05(h) and other than the old word of mouth interp might still want a double hit to be an out:

"6.05(g) after hitting or bunting a fair ball, the bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops the 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;

Little League International. 2016 Baseball Regulations, Rules, and Policies Official Regulations, Playing Rules, and Policies Official Regulations, Playing Rules, and Policies. (Kindle Locations 2082-2084). Little League International. Kindle Edition."

And now I wonder where I got the idea that we protected the batter in that situation. From a 2004 PBUC 

[Stk004]

@maven made this point earlier in July. I've yet to see how a batter is considered "out of the box" until a foot lands entirely outside the lines that define the batters box. 

[maven]

The standards for INT vs illegally batted ball are different.

The question of INT/foul ball turns on whether the batter has left his stance as a batter and become a batter runner. If he's still in his batting stance — 2 feet on the ground in the box — and a batted ball hits him, it's a foul ball. If he's begun to run — even if a foot has not landed outside the box — he's going to be called out for INT. This is a violation by a runner (namely, the BR).

To be batted illegally (in the relevant way), the batter's foot must be on the ground entirely outside the box at the moment he contacts the pitch with his bat. The video cannot have been illegally batted in this sense, because it was no longer a pitched ball, but a batted ball. This is a violation by a batter.

"Legal position in the batter's box" = the position used by a batter when batting. Both feet are on the ground in that position, as it is rather uncommon to hit a pitch with one or both feet in the air. Start the swing and stride? Sure. But not when actually offering at the pitch.

[johnpatrick]

20 hours ago, maven said:

The question of INT/foul ball turns on whether the batter has left his stance as a batter and become a batter runner. If he's still in his batting stance — 2 feet on the ground in the box — and a batted ball hits him, it's a foul ball. If he's begun to run — even if a foot has not landed outside the box — he's going to be called out for INT. This is a violation by a runner (namely, the BR).

Maven and Jimurray I respect your opinions and have learned a ton from you over the years on this forum.  This interpretation is a new one on me.  I ran the above quote by my classmate at the 2015 Umpire School.  His response was "There is no "begun to run" interpretation anywhere in our manuals or rule book."  Now he's just a Single A MiLB umpire and certainly doesn't speak for all of professional baseball.  He may just be wrong.  It may just not have filtered down to his level yet, I suppose.  He said he would have had a foul ball on this play as he would on any double hit or touch in the vicinity of the box that wasn't intentional.

I'm curious where this new interpretation came from?

[Jimurray]

30 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Maven and Jimurray I respect your opinions and have learned a ton from you over the years on this forum.  This interpretation is a new one on me.  I ran the above quote by my classmate at the 2015 Umpire School.  His response was "There is no "begun to run" interpretation anywhere in our manuals or rule book."  Now he's just a Single A MiLB umpire and certainly doesn't speak for all of professional baseball.  He may just be wrong.  It may just not have filtered down to his level yet, I suppose.  He said he would have had a foul ball on this play as he would on any double hit or touch in the vicinity of the box that wasn't intentional.

I'm curious where this new interpretation came from?

I think @maven ,s interp is self generated and is formed by reading the rule which defines a legal position in the box and observing MLB umpires calling batters out on being touched by the ball or double hitting the ball as in the OP when they started to run and no longer had defined legal position in the box.

i don't have an interp because it seems as though the rule is clear and MLB umps are calling it that way. Until @Rich Ives convinces them otherwise. 

I remember when the rule changed and I noted that year or the next a play or two was surprisingly called an out when our old interp would have been foul as in FED or NCAA. 

Do you have ump school written interps of  what defines the batter in the box other than the actual rule?

[johnpatrick]

16 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Do you have ump school written interps of  what defines the batter in the box other than the actual rule?

We had no written interpretations.  We went through the PBUC manual and rule book word for word and discussed each point.  This is what I have in my notes from 6.05(g)

• 6.05 g
  • 2010 language added to clarify what was common practice
  • Fair batted ball striking runner in batter's box

I was pretty attuned to any differences in the Evan's mechanics and rule interpretations that I was taught.  There were a few changes.  This wasn't one of them.  I'm sure if the discussion on the second bullet had been different than what I had been taught in the past, I would certainly have expounded on it in my notes.

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

We had no written interpretations.  We went through the PBUC manual and rule book word for word and discussed each point.  This is what I have in my notes from 6.05(g)

• 6.05 g
  • 2010 language added to clarify what was common practice
  • Fair batted ball striking runner in batter's box

I was pretty attuned to any differences in the Evan's mechanics and rule interpretations that I was taught.  There were a few changes.  This wasn't one of them.  I'm sure if the discussion on the second bullet had been different than what I had been taught in the past, I would certainly have expounded on it in my notes.

What do you have in your notes for 6.05(h)? They may have intended to clarify "common practice" but defining a legal position in the box as per 6.03 did not do that although who knows what they perceived common practice as. I know what we used to think but where did we get that from? My 2004 PBUC doesn't have any protection for the batter.

[johnpatrick]

• 6.05h
  • Bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory, time, batter is out
  • If the ball hits the bat, ball is alive and in play
    • If the ball hits the bat in fair territory and goes foul, it's foul
  • Broken bat, no interference
  • Broken bat, in foul territory, foul
  • Broken bat in fair territory, live ball
  • Whole bat is interference, intentional or not if it interferes with a fielder
  • Helmet In fair territory, alive and in play
  • Helmet in foul territory, foul ball
  • Intentional throwing, is interference

2004 PBUC Manual.  You know the 2015 manual is available from Amazon Kindle for $9.99.

 

[Jimurray]

Here is a play that might have been called by the rule OR less possibly by the application of the old interp and judging the batter left the box:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v14529611/ladnym-mets-get-an-out-on-batter-interference

But I have seen others called (can't find them right now) and clearly the MLB umps in those plays called it by @maven 's unnofficial interp.

[Jimurray]

Don't listen to the announcers on these. They still think the old interp is in place:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v35127781/sdmin-schafer-attempts-bunt-out-on-interference/?query=bunt+hits+batter

http://m.mlb.com/video/v30918583/arisd-fuentes-out-after-being-hit-with-batted-ball/?query=bunt%2Bhits%2Bbatter

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I think @maven ,s interp is self generated and is formed by reading the rule which defines a legal position in the box and observing MLB umpires calling batters out on being touched by the ball or double hitting the ball as in the OP when they started to run and no longer had defined legal position in the box.

That's a fair statement: I was trying to express the basis of what I've been seeing in MLB, where this is being called INT unless the batter has 2 feet on the ground (ish) in the batter's box.

I expect, however, that it's written somewhere besides my post. If not, it's hard to explain the consistency (not perfect, but widespread) that we observe at MLB.

The interp of the rule HAS changed in just the last 2-3 years.

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, maven said:

That's a fair statement: I was trying to express the basis of what I've been seeing in MLB, where this is being called INT unless the batter has 2 feet on the ground (ish) in the batter's box.

I expect, however, that it's written somewhere besides my post. If not, it's hard to explain the consistency (not perfect, but widespread) that we observe at MLB.

The interp of the rule HAS changed in just the last 2-3 years.

I think it actually changed when the rule was changed in 2010 but we only saw examples in MLB showing up about 2012.

[Senor Azul]

From the Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual (2013 edition, section 9.3.1.b, p. 176):

“It is not interference if the batter hits or bunts a ball that immediately strikes the batter or the bat still in his hands while he remains in his legal batting position within the box. It is a foul ball even if the contact is made over fair territory.”

And there is a footnote that goes with this text. It reads:  “If any portion of either foot is outside of the lines of his batter’s box when a fair ball contacts him or his bat over fair territory, this is interference.”

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual (2013 edition, section 9.3.1.b, p. 176):

 

“It is not interference if the batter hits or bunts a ball that immediately strikes the batter or the bat still in his hands while he remains in his legal batting position within the box. It is a foul ball even if the contact is made over fair territory.”

 

And there is a footnote that goes with this text. It reads:  “If any portion of either foot is outside of the lines of his batter’s box when a fair ball contacts him or his bat over fair territory, this is interference.”

 

Which confirms the perception of how MLB umps are calling the rule and ups the ante in a way I hadn't thought of. A batter with both feet on the ground but one partially out of the box legally bunts or hits a the ball which then contacts him or his bat. That's interference. He wasn't in the pre-pitch legal foot position. The question is how do we call the rule at lower levels of OBR baseball (LL being a special case as they never changed the old rule)? And, will @johnpatrick 's MiLB umpire be subject to protest if he calls it the old way in an MiLB ballgame. Or will nobody blink an eye because they are not aware of the rewritten rule implications.

[basejester]

On 8/3/2016 at 8:12 PM, maven said:

The standards for INT vs illegally batted ball are different.

The question of INT/foul ball turns on whether the batter has left his stance as a batter and become a batter runner. If he's still in his batting stance — 2 feet on the ground in the box — and a batted ball hits him, it's a foul ball. If he's begun to run — even if a foot has not landed outside the box — he's going to be called out for INT. This is a violation by a runner (namely, the BR).

To be batted illegally (in the relevant way), the batter's foot must be on the ground entirely outside the box at the moment he contacts the pitch with his bat. The video cannot have been illegally batted in this sense, because it was no longer a pitched ball, but a batted ball. This is a violation by a batter.

"Legal position in the batter's box" = the position used by a batter when batting. Both feet are on the ground in that position, as it is rather uncommon to hit a pitch with one or both feet in the air. Start the swing and stride? Sure. But not when actually offering at the pitch.

I agree that the important distinction is whether or not the batter is running.

 It's not unusual for the back foot to be in the air at contact; that's not running. If the ball strikes the batter's person in this position, it's clearly a foul ball.