Little League - hit by ball in batter's box

[Guest Chris]

What is the call:

Batter is in front of batter's box and tops the ball, the ball hits fair territory and spins back and hits batter while he is still in front of batter's box.

[HokieUmp]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

This type of post does nothing to progress knowledge. Are you somehow getting notifications that you were compelled to respond to?

I stated after the 2017 RIM comment that we would cite that as our reference for the ruling. If you read the thread, you would know the further discussion was related to intellectual curiosity, if that is something you choose not to partake in, please do not feel compelled to do so.

If the desire was to call a foul ball when hitting the batter in fair territory, one could argue they probably could have clarified the rule somewhere between 1939 and 2017. 

It isn't that I do not like the call being foul, it is actually my preference, like I have stated though, I like to administer rules not make them up. There are no rules with ambiguity enough to interpret the foul ball call.

Okay, pretend I don't have "moderator" next to my name, and that I'm just a regular cranky dude.  Because that's what I generally am, and that's how I'm going to respond here.

There are a number of people that have told you how to rule on this.  Because you want a black-and-white rule specifically written - perhaps even addressing you by name in the book - and because your UIC ruled the way he did (spoiler alert - he was incorrect), you don't want to accept that interpretations in all codes have taken care of the issue.  Just because some coaches-box-monkey-turned-lawyer is giving you crap doesn't make them right, and the collective opinion of the umpiring world (including this site) wrong. 

And then you take this 'shots-fired' response to noumpere, along with another dozen or so posts about the subject - for "intellectual curiosity."  Thing is, noumpere's a pretty sharp guy, for one, he's posted almost 320 times more often than you (I did the math), for two, and his rep score is through the roof, which means a lot of people have liked or agreed with a lot of what he's said, for three.

So maybe do some reading, along with some writing, when you're here.  Not saying to not write - not saying that at all - but you came here with a question, and got your answer.  Stop digging.

[conbo61]

25 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

Let me get this straight. You are looking for a rule - not an interpretation - that says a ball that hits the batter while in fair territory inside the batters box is an out rather than a foul ball. Is that right?

NFHS, Rule 2.2.1.f indicates that a foul ball is a batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box. 

NCAA Rule 7.7.e says a foul ball is a legally batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box, or hits the dirt or home plate and then hits the batter or the bat, which is in the hand or hands of the batter, while in the batter's box

OBR  5.09.a.7 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; 

While LL may not have specifically addressed this in its rules book.... try this:  LL Baseball Umpire Clinic Manual . If that's what the organization has in its training materials, I would suggest that it should be sufficient to cite.

I think Kevin's link answers this on page 33.  

1. A batted ball bounces up to hit the batter or his bat after he swings at it.

Ruling: This is a foul ball unless he was obviously out of the batter's box when the contact occurred.

While the other codes Kevin cites clearly define this situation, in Little League it appears to be an interpretation as it is not found in the rule book.  

Drop the phrase "By interpretation..." on the agitated coach and then take a step or two back as I would be willing to bet his head is about to explode.

[Replacematt]

17 minutes ago, Chris said:

are you kidding?

I have done a lot of reading, I have cited the actual LL rules, I have questioned the instructor's comment in the RIM that creates a rule without basis. 

I have yet to ask for a rule that references me by name, I simply asked for A SINGLE LL RULE. I haven't seen a post yet that disagrees with there not being a rule; not even a rule that was ambiguous and some other document provided a clarification. 

"Intellectual curiosity" - you make me laugh by dismissing someone that wants to further a discussion on applying a rule that is not a rule. 

 

I'd venture to say there is no one here that thinks you're serious about intellectual curiosity. You have the answer to the situation. You have the answer to what rule is in the LL book--and even though there is none, that still is an answer. The basis by how to justify the proper ruling has also been answered.

Right now, it seems that you want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing because there is nothing else to be said on the subject. There is a name for umpires like you that is used at clinics...the yeah-but guy, the guy who seeks to offer contradictory situations to answers presented by more-knowledgeable people.

[HokieUmp]

26 minutes ago, Chris said:

are you kidding?

I have done a lot of reading, I have cited the actual LL rules, I have questioned the instructor's comment in the RIM that creates a rule without basis. 

I have yet to ask for a rule that references me by name, I simply asked for A SINGLE LL RULE. I haven't seen a post yet that disagrees with there not being a rule; not even a rule that was ambiguous and some other document provided a clarification. 

"Intellectual curiosity" - you make me laugh by dismissing someone that wants to further a discussion on applying a rule that is not a rule.

Actually, no, I wasn't kidding.  You DID, in fact, do all the things in your second line.  And then you went "yeah, but...."  Believe it or not, that's happened on this site before.

I'll try to add [sarcasm] tags the next time, since your third paragraph tells me I wasn't obvious enough.  But no, no one disagrees - of those that know enough of the LL rulebook to respond.  So you're right - there's not a rule.  But at the same time, you were given the logic path that you follow to actually work a game under LL rules.  And be correct while doing it.  And you continue to resist.

[sarcasm]As for the last paragraph, I'm glad I made you laugh;  it's one of the talents I bring to the site.[/sarcasm]  I don't see it as dismissing you for furthering a discussion;  I see it more as 'dismissing' you - if that's the word - for being one of those guys that gets told what the accepted rule/interpretation/practice is - AT THIS TIME (because things might change, of course) - and yet wants to Be Right and/or "yeahbut" (space intentionally deleted) the thing to death.  You are being one of Those Guys.  And again - throwing some shade at a long time, respected poster.  (Not me, certainly, but noumpere.)  THAT'S where it could be argued is the subject for which I 'dismiss' you.  I prefer to say "calling you out," but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Chris said:

As it pertains to LL, it is like the ball being foul if it hits the plate, a fly ball deflected over the fence in fair territory is a ground rule double, etc - these are commonly considered basic calls; they are wrong and not at all based on the rules.

There is a subtle difference in your example of commonly held rule myths by non umpires and rule interps known by schooled umpires

[Tborze]

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

Actually, no, I wasn't kidding.  You DID, in fact, do all the things in your second line.  And then you went "yeah, but...."  Believe it or not, that's happened on this site before.

I'll try to add [sarcasm] tags the next time, since your third paragraph tells me I wasn't obvious enough.  But no, no one disagrees - of those that know enough of the LL rulebook to respond.  So you're right - there's not a rule.  But at the same time, you were given the logic path that you follow to actually work a game under LL rules.  And be correct while doing it.  And you continue to resist.

[sarcasm]As for the last paragraph, I'm glad I made you laugh;  it's one of the talents I bring to the site.[/sarcasm]  I don't see it as dismissing you for furthering a discussion;  I see it more as 'dismissing' you - if that's the word - for being one of those guys that gets told what the accepted rule/interpretation/practice is - AT THIS TIME (because things might change, of course) - and yet wants to Be Right and/or "yeahbut" (space intentionally deleted) the thing to death.  You are being one of Those Guys.  And again - throwing some shade at a long time, respected poster.  (Not me, certainly, but noumpere.)  THAT'S where it could be argued is the subject for which I 'dismiss' you.  I prefer to say "calling you out," but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

If he were a coach in this situation, he would have been "gone" a long time ago. 

I just hope all this makes him a better official!  

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Chris said:

As it pertains to LL, it is like the ball being foul if it hits the plate, a fly ball deflected over the fence in fair territory is a ground rule double, etc - these are commonly considered basic calls; they are wrong and not at all based on the rules.

You still have not answered my question as to whether you and your UIC are/were aware that the OBR/LL rule wording was the same a few years back and a RIM interp clarified the ruling for LL back then and, as evidenced by the reponses on this thread, the OBR interp was the same.

[udbrky]

If the RIM doesn't carry weight of law, why is it published?

[White47]

This morning I re-read threw this, and thought maybe i was just misunderstanding it last night since it was late. I actual  thought this was going to be a very interesting discussion with so many response. Oh how I was wrong.  Chris, When something has been rules a certain way for a 100+ years, it kinda becomes law, or at the least common knowledge. There's a vocabulary word for that in the judicial system, but i am drawing a blank. 

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, Chris said:

"Intellectual curiosity" - you make me laugh by dismissing someone that wants to further a discussion on applying a rule that is not a rule. 

 

Your "intellectual curiosity" question needs to go to the rules makers / writers in OBR and LL.  OBR won't change it (or many of the other 234 errors) because it's interpreted the right way there, doesn't cause any problems, and they would need the player's association approval to change it.  Since it's not a rule that LL needs to change (to account for safety, participation, the player's ages, etc) they are likley to just copy the OBR rule (but I admit that last part is just speculation).

[maineump]

One of the great things about baseball is the traditions of the game. LL is about many years traditions as well. The rules are based on OBR with safety additions for the kids.

In the OP, I don't even see how a protest could be made, as the call is a judgment call. You can't argue fair/foul - out/safe calls.

The rule book is written to make the game fair for both teams. Not every situation is covered, because the book would be in volumes instead of the current one. Most rules are written for SAFETY (slide rules) and because something happened to cause a big advantage for one of the teams (infield fly).

This whole conversation is based on interpreting the rules using common sense. It is a common practice that if a batter has a foot in the box, and the ball hits him, then it is foul. There is no specific rule written for that, because that is the way it is. Many things happen in a game that is not specifically written in the book, but are covered by two or more rules that have to be looked at and a decision is made from there. An example is baselines - the only thing that it says is the baseline is established by the runner that is being played on, the umpire has to make a JUDGEMENT on how that is enforced.

[Guest Chris]

41 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Your "intellectual curiosity" question needs to go to the rules makers / writers in OBR and LL.  OBR won't change it (or many of the other 234 errors) because it's interpreted the right way there, doesn't cause any problems, and they would need the player's association approval to change it.  Since it's not a rule that LL needs to change (to account for safety, participation, the player's ages, etc) they are likley to just copy the OBR rule (but I admit that last part is just speculation).

[needs to go to the rules makers / writers in OBR and LL] -- that is a fair statement.

[OBR won't change it (or many of the other 234 errors) because it's interpreted the right way there, doesn't cause any problems, and they would need the player's association approval] -- the OBR covers the batter's box.

4. (g)  His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see 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; 

[Jimurray]

41 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

[needs to go to the rules makers / writers in OBR and LL] -- that is a fair statement.

[OBR won't change it (or many of the other 234 errors) because it's interpreted the right way there, doesn't cause any problems, and they would need the player's association approval] -- the OBR covers the batter's box.

4. (g)  His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see 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; 

It took OBR many years before they added the above rule in about 2013 to account for protecting a batter in the box which was done by interp in all the years before the change. Give LL the same amount time to add the rule and in the meantime continue to call it as per the interp. BTW, you still haven't answered my question regarding the rule wording prior to the OBR change.

[Rich Ives]

17 hours ago, Chris said:

“OFFICIAL RULES - The rules contained in this book.”

Excerpt From: Digital, Libre. “2017 Little League Baseball: Official Regulations, Playing Rules, and Policies.” Libre Digital, 2017. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

i have not seen anything stating rules not covered revert to the OBR.

Get over it. Read the RIM.  Note that the interps are the same as the OBR interps.

Most of us have been around a LONG time and have taken the opportunity to learn the rules a  and interps. Now it's your turn to do the learning. Please do so.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, Jwwhite47 said:

This morning I re-read threw this, and thought maybe i was just misunderstanding it last night since it was late. I actual  thought this was going to be a very interesting discussion with so many response. Oh how I was wrong.  Chris, When something has been rules a certain way for a 100+ years, it kinda becomes law, or at the least common knowledge. There's a vocabulary word for that in the judicial system, but i am drawing a blank. 

Precedent 

[White47]

2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Precedent 

Thank you sir!!

[conbo61]

21 hours ago, Chris said:

2017 Make the Right Call, the casebook of Little League Baseball and Softball

i do not see a ruling for 6.05(f).

there are rulings for 6.05(b)(2) and (g,h,j,k,l, and m).

I am 100% in agreement this should be foul, again, I just need a cited LL Rule or Approved Ruling. I also agree that it is most often called a foul. I must be dense, but I just cannot find an official ruling to support that call.

Don't forget this hidden nugget...

8.01 (c) (Formerly 9.01 (c)) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.  

Granted it is OBR and I do not have an old LL Rule Book Handy, but is there a similar provision in LL?

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, maineump said:

In the OP, I don't even see how a protest could be made, as the call is a judgment call. You can't argue fair/foul - out/safe calls.

But you can argue/protest judgment calls like out/safe that are based on incorrect rule applications.

If the umpire says "the batter was in the box, but was also in fair territory, so he is out" that is a protestable call.

If a player tags a runner with an empty glove, and the umpire rules him out because he had possession of the ball in his other hand, that's protestable.

If an umpire calls strike three on a foul ball, that's protestable.

An IFF is a judgment call, but if an umpire calls it with nobody on base, and the shortstop drops the ball, you would be able to protest.

 

[MT73]

50 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Get over it. Read the RIM.  Note that the interps are the same as the OBR interps.

Most of us have been around a LONG time and have taken the opportunity to learn the rules a  and interps. Now it's your turn to do the learning. Please do so.

We can best help this guy to do so by ignoring him if he keeps up with this BS.

[Guest STRosa]

Can we we be done with this conversation? 

In higher education they teach critical thinking; if someone presents a statement that does not provide a reader with an explanation of how they reached their conclusion, we explore all possible explanations to figure out the basis for the statement. This is not considered ignorant, lack of understanding, or lazy, it is considered prudent.

Reading through the comments the RIM seems to be the only answer applicable to little league - there were rules provided from other rulesets, but they are not relevant to the discussion, as they do not apply to little league.
The instructor's note does not explain how they interpreted the rule to call foul - there are no rules that can be combined or flexible enough to be interpreted as noted.
Is precedent all that is needed? Who's precedent, what if there are conflicting precedence based on ruleset - should the umpire rule based on the precedent they choose without regard to the little league rules?
In the end, the answer was provided, cite the RIM if you feel you must support your call. However, I do see the merit in exploring why little league does not follow other rulesets and update their rules.
A lot of this is bullying, and is not in the spirit of community. If you are too knowledgeable to provide constructive feedback without adding ad hominem attacks, then just ignore the post and be happy that you know everything and have no room to grow by questioning inaccuracies in logic.
 

[MT73]

1 hour ago, Guest STRosa said:

Can we we be done with this conversation? 

In higher education they teach critical thinking; if someone presents a statement that does not provide a reader with an explanation of how they reached their conclusion, we explore all possible explanations to figure out the basis for the statement. This is not considered ignorant, lack of understanding, or lazy, it is considered prudent.

Reading through the comments the RIM seems to be the only answer applicable to little league - there were rules provided from other rulesets, but they are not relevant to the discussion, as they do not apply to little league.
The instructor's note does not explain how they interpreted the rule to call foul - there are no rules that can be combined or flexible enough to be interpreted as noted.
Is precedent all that is needed? Who's precedent, what if there are conflicting precedence based on ruleset - should the umpire rule based on the precedent they choose without regard to the little league rules?
In the end, the answer was provided, cite the RIM if you feel you must support your call. However, I do see the merit in exploring why little league does not follow other rulesets and update their rules.
A lot of this is bullying, and is not in the spirit of community. If you are too knowledgeable to provide constructive feedback without adding ad hominem attacks, then just ignore the post and be happy that you know everything and have no room to grow by questioning inaccuracies in logic.
 

Logic dictates that having us debate why little league does not follow other rule sets and update their rules is fruitless.

The logical course of action is to take this up with the Little League powers that be.

[LMSANS]

I'm putting an end to this. 

[Chris]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Evans identifies 234 (or some such number) or errors, omissions, falsehoods, and mistakes in OBR (upon which LL rules are based -- most of it is a direct copy).  Plus, the rules are written "by gentlemen, for gentlemen; not by lawyers, for lawyers."

 

It would be nice to think that all would be corrected by now.  It's better to just apply the rules as they have come to be interpreted.  The play you mention is a foul ball.  It's been explained multiple times.  You don't have to like it; you should accept it.  Any more starts to become like trolling.

This type of post does nothing to progress knowledge. Are you somehow getting notifications that you were compelled to respond to?

I stated after the 2017 RIM comment that we would cite that as our reference for the ruling. If you read the thread, you would know the further discussion was related to intellectual curiosity, if that is something you choose not to partake in, please do not feel compelled to do so.

If the desire was to call a foul ball when hitting the batter in fair territory, one could argue they probably could have clarified the rule somewhere between 1939 and 2017. 

It isn't that I do not like the call being foul, it is actually my preference, like I have stated though, I like to administer rules not make them up. There are no rules with ambiguity enough to interpret the foul ball call.

[Chris]

9 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Last week..

Batter hits a foul ball to the backstop.

Catcher throws it back to the pitcher but it goes over his head.

R3 scores.

I send him back.

Coach states that on a foul ball the runner has the right to advance on an over throw.

I tell him he is wrong.

Suppose he wanted to show me a rule book to support his ( ridiculous) position?

Should I entertain his lunacy for the sake of field decorum?

Your OP is just as ridiculous to everyone except you.

Yes, we'll know that a part of the batter's box is in fair territory.

But as long as the hit foot is till within the box when he is struck it is a foul ball.

Deal with it.

That is not even remotely analogous, there is a clear rule on the foul ball.

jimurray brought up that he would call the batter out on a deadened bunt landing in the batter's box that the batter touched.

[Chris]

8 minutes ago, Jwwhite47 said:

I'm not really following this discussion. Are some people actually saying this should be an out? I've never done a LL game in my life, but I kinda thought that a ball hitting someone in the box was just an old fashion "baseball" rule, and that it was always foul.
Maybe I'm misreading this thread, but this seems like a pretty basic call, if he was for sure in the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it pertains to LL, it is like the ball being foul if it hits the plate, a fly ball deflected over the fence in fair territory is a ground rule double, etc - these are commonly considered basic calls; they are wrong and not at all based on the rules.