834k3r Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, JSam21 said: So this is an honest question, because I've seen many people give the same answer as you. What exactly are you seeing that shows you that F2 has been hindered in any way here? I'm seeing F2 giving up on a ball that he knows that he isn't going to be able to field. He is still a good distance away from the batter and had his back turned to him the entire time. He has no clue where the batter is. I'm trying to pretend I'm the PU and don't have the luxury of multiple camera angles and replay. If I'm the PU, I'm seeing F2 backpedal quickly and lunge at the ball as he realizes the BR is near. BR didn't intentionally interfere, but in real time it looks like INT to me. (As an aside, looks like PU cleared the plate area to the left (which I would have done with a RHB) but that was the wrong side to be in this scenario. A good reminder to me to move--but to keep moving as the players move.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchAngel72 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 ?? batted ball hits the batter while he is in the box, I do not see int on this as he did not interfere with the catcher at that point the catcher was not close enough nor had he stopped pursuing the ball he just was not there at that time. so.. Foul... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said: ?? batted ball hits the batter while he is in the box, I do not see int on this as he did not interfere with the catcher at that point the catcher was not close enough nor had he stopped pursuing the ball he just was not there at that time. so.. Foul... Did the batter vacate the box and then re-enter the box? I do agree that we have a foul ball. Just not for the same reason that you do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, JSam21 said: Did the batter vacate the box and then re-enter the box? I do agree that we have a foul ball. Just not for the same reason that you do. I do not believe the rule regarding the batter being hit while in the box resulting in a foul ball has ANYTHING to do with this play. The rules makers envisioned a batter hitting the ball and then immediately running to first, and the close proximity of the batter and ball absolves him from interference as long as he's still in a legal position in the box (rule sets vary on the definition of legally in the box). NOBODY envisioned a batter hitting a high pop-up and just planting his keister in the box and getting hit, especially without hindering the defense on their attempt to field the ball. Has anyone EVER seen this play at ANY level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 20 hours ago, grayhawk said: I do not believe the rule regarding the batter being hit while in the box resulting in a foul ball has ANYTHING to do with this play. The rules makers envisioned a batter hitting the ball and then immediately running to first, and the close proximity of the batter and ball absolves him from interference as long as he's still in a legal position in the box (rule sets vary on the definition of legally in the box). NOBODY envisioned a batter hitting a high pop-up and just planting his keister in the box and getting hit, especially without hindering the defense on their attempt to field the ball. Has anyone EVER seen this play at ANY level? I 100% agree with you on bolded section, but for different reasons. 1) He isn't even in the box when he gets hit. 2) He already left the box. Where I will disagree with you is here: If they never left the box, they would have retained their protection. We have to go by how the rule is written. There is no difference in practice between one going straight down into the foot or leg or one coming down on top of their head 3 seconds later. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted July 1 Author Report Share Posted July 1 19 minutes ago, JSam21 said: Where I will disagree with you is here: If they never left the box, they would have retained his protection. We have to go by how the rule is written. There is no difference in practice between one going straight down into the foot or leg or one coming down on top of their head 3 seconds later. Even without "any other movement" they can't stay in the box if they reasonably have time to vacate, e.g. passed ball & R2 rounds 3B and coming home, batter as statue who never moved can be INT. This is an interesting one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 37 minutes ago, JSam21 said: There is no difference in practice between one going straight down into the foot or leg or one coming down on top of their head 3 seconds later. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. One is completely unavoidable, and the other is absolutely 100% avoidable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 8 minutes ago, grayhawk said: There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. One is completely unavoidable, and the other is absolutely 100% avoidable. While avoidable, at the end of the day it is still a batter in the box being hit by a batted ball, which by rule is a foul ball. Respectfully, you are adding conditions that aren't in the rule. As written they are both the same. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 19 minutes ago, Velho said: Even without "any other movement" they can't stay in the box if they reasonably have time to vacate, e.g. passed ball & R2 rounds 3B and coming home, batter as statue who never moved can be INT. This is an interesting one. Yeah... that's for a thrown ball and/or hinderance with making a play on a runner. We are talking about a batted ball and advancement being a requirement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted July 1 Author Report Share Posted July 1 45 minutes ago, JSam21 said: that's for a thrown ball and/or hinderance with making a play on a runner. We are talking about a batted ball and advancement being a requirement. I know we're getting into the nitty-gritty here but that's not correct. It's for interfering with a "catcher's fielding or throwing". No restriction to making a play on a runner. If we skip this provision because we're talking batter-runner*, tangle/untangle would seem to apply. BR has plenty of time and is not "doing what they are supposed to be doing" so no protection would be afforded. * Which I'm a bit unclear about since you don't become a BR on a foul ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted July 1 Author Report Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted July 1 Author Report Share Posted July 1 Personally, I think it's possible and reasonable F2 didn't go to the ground in a falling backwards dive because the batter was there (especially having to judge it in real time). Calling the out is justified imo. Batter stood there staring at his shoe tops. Shouldn't get benefit of the doubt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 1 Report Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Velho said: I know we're getting into the nitty-gritty here but that's not correct. It's for interfering with a "catcher's fielding or throwing". No restriction to making a play on a runner. If we skip this provision because we're talking batter-runner*, tangle/untangle would seem to apply. BR has plenty of time and is not "doing what they are supposed to be doing" so no protection would be afforded. * Which I'm a bit unclear about since you don't become a BR on a foul ball. You were talking about vacating the area weren’t you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 @UmpSmart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 Getting hit with a batted ball while in the box is a foul ball. I don't think there's a time limit. We need to be careful with thinking that lingering in the batter's and hindering a fielder is protected conduct b/c it's not and there are several plays where lingering there and interfering is interference without reference to tangle/untangle. I haven't watched the video enough to know if that batter/runner vacated & returned to the batter's box. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UmpSmart Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 There are 2 major things to consider....I am assuming we all agree that this is not a caught baseball, I hope. 1. Was there any hindrance of the catchers ability to catch the baseball. This is easy to figure out, if you just look at the actions of the catcher. The catcher at no point takes a step in which he did not initiate nor did he ever stop, stutter or alter in his movements...He simply misplays the pop up, which happens all the time at all levels. 2. Is the batter protected in the batters box? To answer this, you have to understand the spirit of the rule. It's made to protect the immediate action of the batter being hit by a batted ball while still in the box. Him leaving the box and re-entering the box would be an attempt to circumvent the rule. You can't leave and then re-enter, and think you will be protected by rule. This play is quite simple when you break it down. We only need to rule on fair/foul. After that if the runner gets hit with a batted ball in fair territory he is out for interference. If he gets hit in foul territory it's foul, UNLESS there is an INTENTIONAL act by the runner on a batted ball that has the possibility of becoming fair.(That doesn't happen obviously) On plays like this, you don't need to use judgment. You simply rule on the actions of all parties involved...Sometimes players misplay pop ups, and the ball falls, and in this case it unfortunately hits a runner who for whatever reason decided not to run to first.....Just rule on what happened without any judgment or opinion, and this is relatively easy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 On 6/30/2024 at 8:57 PM, JSam21 said: The batter has vacated the box and then re-enters it. I would think that vacates his protection. No doubt about the vacating portion. I just couldn't tell if he actually left and came back or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 12 hours ago, JSam21 said: Honestly, because that is how the rule is written. It doesn't distinguish between the batter being hit by the ball immediately or with a delay. In reality the only "requirement" for the batter to advance is when dealing with a tangle/untangle. If he didn't leave the box, I am with @JSam21 . . . I don't like it, but there is no 4th dimensional (time) requirement on a batted ball hitting the batter while in the batter's box. So if he stands there while Crash Davis yells "RUN DUMMY!" then he stands there and retains that protection. While the rule doesn't preclude leaving the box and coming back, I do agree that leaving and wandering back negates that protection. That said, as long as somebody is trying to catch it, I have an interference call. If everybody looses it and nobody is trying to catch it, foul ball. (No, the pitcher's 'catch' although impressive, does not count.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 6 hours ago, grayhawk said: I do not believe the rule regarding the batter being hit while in the box resulting in a foul ball has ANYTHING to do with this play. The rules makers envisioned a batter hitting the ball and then immediately running to first, and the close proximity of the batter and ball absolves him from interference as long as he's still in a legal position in the box (rule sets vary on the definition of legally in the box). NOBODY envisioned a batter hitting a high pop-up and just planting his keister in the box and getting hit, especially without hindering the defense on their attempt to field the ball. Has anyone EVER seen this play at ANY level? Yet in another thread about umpire interference, the argument is being made the other way on a ricocheted passed ball: the argument is being made that proximity and timing have nothing to do with it. We can't use it when it is convenient and dismiss it when it isn't. Just because NOBODY envisioned it doesn't mean we get to change what the rule says. Unless you are a high level, published "interpreter" . . . then you can call the sky red because you don't like that shade of blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said: Yet in another thread about umpire interference, the argument is being made the other way on a ricocheted passed ball: the argument is being made that proximity and timing have nothing to do with it. We can't use it when it is convenient and dismiss it when it isn't. Just because NOBODY envisioned it doesn't mean we get to change what the rule says. Unless you are a high level, published "interpreter" . . . then you can call the sky red because you don't like that shade of blue. I can't really care anymore because it's never going to happen while I'm on the field. I doubt it will happen again for 150 more years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UmpSmart Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said: If he didn't leave the box, I am with @JSam21 . . . I don't like it, but there is no 4th dimensional (time) requirement on a batted ball hitting the batter while in the batter's box. So if he stands there while Crash Davis yells "RUN DUMMY!" then he stands there and retains that protection. While the rule doesn't preclude leaving the box and coming back, I do agree that leaving and wandering back negates that protection. That said, as long as somebody is trying to catch it, I have an interference call. If everybody looses it and nobody is trying to catch it, foul ball. (No, the pitcher's 'catch' although impressive, does not count.) Just because somebody is trying to catch it doesn't make it interference. There has to be a hinderence for there to be interference....fly balls and pop ups fall untouched all the time, at every level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted July 2 Author Report Share Posted July 2 2 hours ago, grayhawk said: I can't really care anymore because it's never going to happen while I'm on the field. I doubt it will happen again for 150 more years. And let's not forget the 2nd biggest take away 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchAngel72 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 18 hours ago, JSam21 said: Did the batter vacate the box and then re-enter the box? I do agree that we have a foul ball. Just not for the same reason that you do. I from the camera view dont see him fully vacating the box and cannot see any lines from the camera view. Did he I do not know based on what I can see. The umpire should have had a better view and understanding of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 12 hours ago, grayhawk said: I can't really care anymore because it's never going to happen while I'm on the field. I doubt it will happen again for 150 more years. Scratching out a box on my bingo card and adding "This happens to @grayhawk this weekend . . . TWICE." 😉 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 36 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: Scratching out a box on my bingo card and adding "This happens to @grayhawk this weekend . . . TWICE." 😉 Do your worst 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.