This folder is reserved for discussions related to the batter, section 6.00 of Official Baseball Rules. Included are topics like the Designated Hitter, batter interference, catcher's interference, batting out of order, etc.

Post away!

Ump,
Here is something interesting from my game last night.

The batter hit a wicked line drive back to the pitcher. The ball was hit so hard, that the glove fell off the pitchers hand and landed on the mound.
Then the ball rolled out of the glove, so it was no catch, but the runner was still out at first from the throw.

My question is, what if the ball stayed in the glove? Is that an out? Or does the glove have to be on the fielder's hand?

Thanks

Josh

Hi, js:

Once the pitcher's mitt became separated from his person and hit the ground, the ball was no longer considered in flight and therefore could not be caught. Therefore, in your situation, the ball had to be thrown to first base for the putout of the batter-runner. BTW, if the ball/mitt combo was thrown to first (because the ball became stuck in it, for example), it would be a legal putout provided the ball/mitt combo didn't become loose in the first baseman's mitt.

Weird, but it's happened.

Ump,
Cool. That is what I thought.

I remember I think back in 1987, Terry Mulholland (giants) threw out Keith Hernandez at first base, with the ball and the glove at the same time!

Thanks

Josh

Okay... I'm totally confused about this one (relative newbie to actually watching baseball rather than just staring at the purty men )

I've seen a case where with a something and 2 count, the batter swings (and misses) at a really bad pitch, but the catcher doesn't catch the pitch... and the batter starts running.

Huh? :confused:

And, if he actually makes it to first safely, what is that scored as?

addboi,

I've italicized part of your original question, because that actually is the appropriate way to look at this.

You are referring to what is commonly called a "dropped third strike." That term is a misnomer. The correct terminology should be a "third strike not caught." "Dropped third strike" is not found anywhere in the rule book.

When a batter has two strikes on him and the third strike is not caught in flight by the catcher, said batter may run to first base if it is unoccupied or occupied with two outs. To be put out for an actual out, either he or first base must be tagged. If a force situation exists, such as bases loaded w/ two outs, then any other runner may be put out via force instead of the batter-runner. Example: Bases loaded with two outs when the batter swings at strike three and the catcher muffs it. The catcher need only to step on the plate for the force out on R3 from third.

The reason why I emphasize the wording "third strike not caught" is because many people mistakenly believe if the ball skips in the dirt then the catcher gloves it, he has caught it. "Hey, blue! He caught it. He didn't drop it!"

It was not caught in flight; therefore, the batter-runner may try for first, conditioned on the above situations.

Hope this helps.

Just flipping channels and saw a situation in the Red Sox-Mariners game: the batter was HBP, but there was some question whether he swung at the pitch as well (it would have been Strike 3). So, my question is: If a batter is hit on a swinging strike 3, does the strikeout override the HBP?

Canmark, whenever a batter swings at a pitch and is hit, it is what we call a "dead ball strike."

It's a strike because he swung, and it's dead because it hit him. Because it is dead, and in your situation strike 3, he is out. No HBP, no dropped third strike.

The same ruling applies if the batter is hit by a pitch that is in the strike zone, or if he attempts to bunt and is hit by the pitch.

So I was watching Mr. Baseball and a batter swung at and hit a ball during an intentional walk but was called out for stepping on the plate. Is this an MLB rule, a Japanese rule, or Hollywood license?

And later in the same game the batter was running to first and it seemed like he bodychecked the pitcher who was either fielding a dribbler or racing to cover first. Since the batter didn't go out of the baseline he was ruled safe. Is this legal?

Under Pro Rules, a batter is out for hitting an "illegally batted ball," which is a ball hit fair, foul, or foul tip with one or both feet completely outside the batter's box. Because the plate is only 6" away from the lines of the batter's box, it is quite possible for a batter to touch the plate when contacting the ball. He is not out if he does this, provided part of his foot is still on the lines of the box or within the lines of the box.

Under NCAA Rules, there is a specific rule that expands on this and does rule the batter out if he touches the plate when contacting the ball, regardless of whether he's still "in" the box.

If a fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ball, then contact by a batter or runner will be ruled interference. If a fielder has already fielded the ball and is running to tag the base, which it sounds like is the case here, then contact with a runner is not interference. Because the fielder actually has possession of the ball, contact cannot be ruled obstruction on the fielder. Therefore, it's ruled incidental contact, or what we refer to as "That's nothing!"

Question: I was listening to part of the Mariners-White Sox game last night on radio and the broadcasters mentioned an incident that happened recently to the Mariners. It seems that John Olerud and Rich Aurillia went to the 'video room' behind the dugout (to review their swings while their team was batting), and got locked in! John Olerud's turn at bat came up--but he was nowhere to be found. The manager had to stall for time, and Bret Boone battered down the door with his bat. My question is: how long would a batter be given to come up to bat before which he's declared "out?"

For a situation as unique as this, we'd most likely try to be patient and give the offense a little time, but if we think it's getting a bit prolonged, we may very well require a substitute batter be inserted into the lineup to avoid the automatic strike situation (which generally is used for other reasons).

BTW, if a batter takes too long to get in the box, he's not called out.

In tonight's Phils-Marlins game we saw what is a very rare call: a Marlins batter was hit by a pitch but was not awarded first base because the home plate umpire ruled he didn't attempt to get out of the way. It seems like it ought to be called more often...to the naked eye of a non-umpire, that is.

You're very astute, Joe, for a non-umpire.

You are correct that it doesn't happen that often. We call it a dead ball strike: when a batter swings or bunts at a pitch and gets hit by the pitched ball, it's a strike and not a hit batsman, and because it hit him, it's a dead ball; hence the term dead ball strike. The same ruling applies when the batter gets hit by a pitch that is in the strike zone.

Hello Ump! Right from the start I'd like to mention how greatly I appreciate the generous gift you provide to OUTSPORTS by writing this column. I've always thought it was amazing that we have a real, live, Major League Umpire on staff who has been willing to contribute his baseball insights, day after day each season for the past several years. (How long has it been now, at least 6 consecutive years, hasn't it?)
You may have answered this question a few times already, so forgive me for the repetition. I remember you said that calling a strike on a checked swing is at the discretion of the umpire, since there are no rules written in the rulebook governing that motion. How does an umpire decide when a missed bunt attempt is a strike and the pitch is out of the strike zone? Thanks again.

The same thing happened today in the Padres-Nationals game -- Padres' Kevin Kouzmanoff was hit by a pitch but home plate umpire Bob Davidson said he didn't try to avoid it and made him come back to the plate. That's twice I've seen it happen. Maybe it's a trend...although the Nats' announcers thought it was because Davidson, is a no-nonsense, strictly-by-the-rulebook type. That may explain why the number of balk calls he makes has led to the nickname "Balkin' Bob."

Indeed, Joe. You are correct. Bob does have such a nickname, particularly among the ranks of the media and amateur umpires.

My apologies for neglecting your post, fielder. It was an unintentional oversight.

To answer your question regarding how or when we determine if a batter bunted at the ball, while there is, as you have stated, no rule book specificity on the subject, we generally tend to keep in mind the definition of a bunt, which involves the batter intentionally pushing the bat forward toward the ball--rather than swinging at it. for the most part, a batter has to be pushing or moving the bat forward in some fashion for there to be a bunt attempt and therefore a strike if he misses. What this means is that it is not a strike if he just leaves the bat out there, nor does he have to be "pulling the bat back" or something similar--all often quoted mythological statements.

I hope this answers your question. If not, please let me know.

Situation: Batter hits the ball down off of home plate. Ball bounces straight up then arcs toward foul territory off the third base line. Catcher steps forward then left to avoid batter who has taken one step out of batter's box and stops directly in front of home plate. Catcher catches the ball while standing in foul territory and tags the batter/runner.

Question: Is the batter/runner out?

Question: Are there variations in how you would make the call of a ball batted off of home plate?

Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts.

--RGS6

RG, a ball that hits off the plate is judged fair/foul based on where it is first touched or eventually settles without being touched. When the ball hits the plate then bounces up, we attempt to judge it fair or foul by lining up along what we call the first or third base line extended. This is relatively simple to do when the ball goes one direction or the other. However, when it bounces directly above the plate, it can be challenging, to say the least, to judge it relative to either foul line due to the fact that the ball is over neither in a sense.

If the ball is judged to be over home plate--think of the plate as a 3D image rising to the sky--and is touched, it's fair and the batter would be out if tagged. It's irrelevant where the catcher is standing because the ball is judged fair/foul based on where it is touched in your situation and not where the fielder is when said ball is touched.

As far as your last question goes, there aren't any variations as to how I personally would make the call. I point fair and say nothing if it's fair; I put my hands up and yell, "Foul!" if it's foul.

Blue, thank you so much for your answer. When you get a chance, here are a couple of wrinkles to the original question:

Does the batter/runner's position (steps out of batter's box and stops in front of the plate) impede the catcher and, therefore, constitute interference?

If the rebounding hit ball off of the plate were to touch the batter/runner (whether still in the batter's box or out of it), is he out based on rule 6.05?

RG,

To answer your first question, no, interference will rarely be called unless the batter really does something unusual. This is because when the batter hits the ball and begins to run to first and the catcher begins to field such batted ball, if the two should entangle themselves, they're both doing something legal, something that they each normally do. Consequently, neither is penalized.

Regarding your second question, when a batter hits the ball and the ball contacts him in the batter's box, it's ruled a foul ball. Technically speaking, 13% of the batter's box is in fair territory. However, because it's often very difficult to tell and rule accordingly, we officially rule it a foul ball whenever the batter is contacted by his hit ball in the batter's box. This usually happens right away or right near where he originally stood, because once he begins to run toward first, he's most likely out of the box and if contacted by the ball then, he's out, ball is dead, and runners return to time of pitch bases.

It's really wonderful of you to take the time to reply and to reply so quickly. Many thanks!

-- RGS6

Many times after a batter makes a weak swing on a third strike, the batter will look back at the umpire and seemingly ask if he just swung at a strike (i.e., had he not swung, would it have been called a strike). In general, will an umpire answer such a query? Does it vary by umpire?

Truthfully, when asked we'll often tell the batter the pitch was in there even when it isn't.

Obviously this doesn't work when the pitch is a foot outside.

In our game last night we had an interesting play that the umpires acted quickly on, but I'm not sure if they were correct. I don't care about that call or that game anymore (we won), but want understand the rule for next time.

A batter lifted his leg up and forward to contact a pitch (kick i) as it was approaching the catcher. There was no question by anyone in the ballpark that this was not a hit by pitch. The call made by the umpire was "dead ball, and a "ball" was called (as the pith would have been a ball if it had followed its couse).

I understand the rule for "failing to attempt to avoid getting hit" and if that is the interpretation then I agree with th umpires call.

My thinking is that "interference" should have been called as the catcher was unable to make a play on baserunners. If interference, then I believe the batter would be called out.

If not interference, what would stop a batter who doesn't like curve balls from standing at the front of the batters box and reaching out to stop curveballs from reaching the plate before they curved into the strike zone?

Any guidance or reference to official rules would be appreciated.

So apparently there's this rule that states, "No player named Milton Bradley shall be allowed to breathe or show any signs of life in front of an umpire. Failure to comply will result in ejection."

That was cheap. Any other player and that ejection doesn't happen. You know I'm right.

Knight,



If the umpire believes the batter is trying to hinder the catcher's attempt or even, in this case, potential attempt, to make a play on a runner, the batter will be declared out for interference. The ball is dead and runners return to their time of pitch bases.









Respect is earned, not deserved. Mr. Bradley's reputation was earned. He now has to live with the reputation he has justifiably earned.

So you're basically admitting that Milton Bradley was given less of a leash because of his reputation, and not because of what actually happened at that moment? A Major League Baseball umpire is telling me that a certain player was treated differently because of his past, and that's acceptable? I agree he hasn't always been a model citizen, but if I'm in that umpire's shoes, I'm thankful that all he did was drop the bat, pick it up and walk away. That's not showing anyone up--I guarantee, if there was no ejection, 99% of the crowd wouldn't have even noticed that he dropped the bat, and the 1% that did notice wouldn't have remembered ten minutes later. It was the ejection that made the crowd notice. So if anything, the umpire showed Bradley up.

Bradley may have visibly shown some surprise at the call. But he kept his mouth shut about it. And when you have a player who obviously disagrees with a call but decides not to argue--especially someone with a "justifiably earned" bad reputation, as you put it--that tells me that that player is doing something right. And Bradley, in my opinion, did everything right at that particular moment. The call surprised him enough to drop the bat, but then he picked it up and left without uttering a word. He did absolutely nothing to deserve being ejected. But because of some trigger happy umpire who probably called his buddies to brag about it after the game, he was ejected anyway. And before you get on me about saying something disrespectful about that umpire, remember, you just said yourself, "Respect is earned, not deserved." And that umpire has earned none of my respect with that ejection.

The past has absolutely no relevance in a baseball game. If a player is being judged based on anything other than what is happening at the present moment, then he is not being treated fairly. If you would not eject Derek Jeter or Ichiro Suzuki for the same action, then you can't eject Milton Bradley for it.

I noticed MLB Umpire hasn't yet replied, so I don't know what he'll say, but I know I can tell you that if you believe your own statement, then you truly have no idea how the game is played.

So you think it's okay for an umpire to eject a player because of his reputation and not his present actions? I mean, seriously, what did that umpire write in his report? "I could see that he didn't think it was a strike. He didn't actually do anything, but this is totally the guy that gets in all these arguments with everyone, so I can toss him for that, right?"

There is nothing wrong with simply disagreeing with a call. And all Milton Bradley did was simply disagree with a call. Not even verbally. He reacted, and walked away. There are hundreds if not thousands of instances every year where someone does the same or more and is not ejected. Hell, there's probably one every game or two. And that's what I'm saying. If this was Derek Jeter at the plate, it would have been seen as the simple kneejerk reaction that is was. But because it was Milton Bradley, and ONLY because it was Milton Bradley, he was ejected. Which is a shame, because, and I'll say it again, in that particular situation, Milton Bradley did everything right. Here's a guy who could have argued the call--and certainly has argued some calls in the past--but this time he didn't. But because the umpire noticed that he disagreed anyway and went "OMGit'sMiltonBradleyurgone!", his good behaviour was reinforced negatively. He wasn't ejected for what he did, he was ejected because of his reputation. And I'm having a hard time believing that a major league umpire just told me he thinks that's okay.

I don't care what a player said about an umpire's mother and farm animals last year, when the next game starts, and every game after that, that player is an equal again. And if you're going to hold grudges and let it impair your judgment of that player in future games, then you're too prejudiced to be an umpire.

I hope Milton Bradley reads this. He's probably been thinking for years that the umpires are out to get him, and MLBUMPIRE's statement will remove all doubt from his mind that he is right.

Perhaps you should call Major League Baseball and demand to know the contents of the umpire's report in the Bradley situation. You're awful presumptive in thinking Bradley didn't say something to get ejected. I'm sure he crossed that line that determines when a player is ejected, and unless MLB Umpire is the exact umpire involved in the Bradley incident to which you refer in your OP, we're not going to find out what was said. In fact, even if MLB Umpire was the umpire in question, I seriously doubt he's going to reveal what he wrote in it.

Face it. Bradley is a total jerk who, as he has done countless times before, said something that warranted his ejection.

Presumptive? No, how about, I saw the clip and his mouth didn't move. So unless Milton Bradley's a ventriloquist, he didn't say a word. He was ejected for his bat hitting the ground. That was the reaction I was talking about. I even found an article just now where his manager suggests he simply dropped it to take his batting gloves off. Which again, is something that countless other players whose names aren't Milton Bradley are allowed to do.