Ball hit twice

[Richvee]

I had a chance to chat with someone in contact with MLB umpires and I brought this issue up. He told me if the ball contacts the batter with one entire foot outside the box, be it in the air or on the ground, it is interference.  If he's contacted with one foot in the air over the confines of the batter's box, it is a foul ball. IOW, one foot must be completely beyond the line of the batter's box, be it on the ground,or in the air.

He added he's had many conversations with MLB umpires on this rule, one thing they all agree upon...it is absolutely one the toughest calls they have to make, and they all would welcome the use of replay for such calls.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I had a chance to chat with someone in contact with MLB umpires and I brought this issue up. He told me if the ball contacts the batter with one entire foot outside the box, be it in the air or on the ground, it is interference.  If he's contacted with one foot in the air over the confines of the batter's box, it is a foul ball. IOW, one foot must be completely beyond the line of the batter's box, be it on the ground,or in the air.

He added he's had many conversations with MLB umpires on this rule, one thing they all agree upon...it is absolutely one the toughest calls they have to make, and they all would welcome the use of replay for such calls.

So @Rich Ives interp is correct. A foot not touching the ground but not outside the box is a legal position. That would not come close to clarifying "common practice". And would not explain how most of the calls were made except for one this year where, in my opinion, an old school ump called it the old way and ejected the manager in the aftermath. Total goat rope of a rule change.

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So @Rich Ives interp is correct. A foot not touching the ground but not outside the box is a legal position. That would not come close to clarifying "common practice". And would not explain how most of the calls were made except for one this year where, in my opinion, an old school ump called it the old way and ejected the manager in the aftermath. Total goat rope of a rule change.

Perhaps...Or perhaps it's just so tough to get right in real time, that some of the calls we have in these in the clips would indeed be overturned by replay. There's also the possibility that, like us here, there's differing interps among MLB umpires working today. 

[maven]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So @Rich Ives interp is correct.

Careful now: nothing against Rich V., but "a guy that an internet acquaintance knows" isn't exactly the kind of authority I'm used to seeing you cite.

What's interesting about that interp, authoritative or not, is that replay is driving it. No PU is able to see both the ball hitting the player and the exact location of his foot when he is hit. If MLB'ers dislike that call, it's partly because they can't reasonably be expected to judge what they need to judge in order to be reliably right.

That's why we (as in, we umpires who don't have video review) tend to rely on philosophy: until recently, philosophy at all levels was that, when in doubt, it's a foul ball. In pro ball, philosophy has shifted lately to, when in doubt, it's INT.

The purpose of philosophy is to promote consistency across umpires, levels, and games. IMHO, the old philosophy did that better.

[johnpatrick]

27 minutes ago, maven said:

The purpose of philosophy is to promote consistency across umpires, levels, and games. IMHO, the old philosophy did that better.

I agree, no way to see it.  If we eventually move away from a step and a half, just begun to run works for me.

[Jimurray]

Still right now the fact remains that every call I've seen in MLB except one this year has conformed to to the to the criteria of a legal position in the box, including the unwritten requirement of "on the ground".