[BretMan]

Originally Posted by MigoP

Bret. You answered your own question in your last post. Rule 7.4 Art.a. NFHS. defines what is considered out of the batters box.

The rules define what's considered being "out of the box" prior to receiving the pitch. They also define being "out of the box" when the pitch is contacted with the bat. Those are two separate and distinct scenarios, covered by two different rules, each that have their own different requirements.

For a batted ball hitting the batter-runner, that is a third scenario, a completely different game action. Is it inconceivable that a scenario completely different than the other two might have a different definition for being "out of the box"?

We have here three different scenarios where the umpire has to rule that the "batter is out of the box" (let's call them "A", "B" and "C", respectively). We know that the definition in "A" is not the same as in "B". "C" is not specifically defined in the rule that applies to this play.

If we just assume that "C" is the same as "B"...there is your "leap in logic".

Originally Posted by MigoP

If it's your own batted ball and you have 1 foot outside the box when contacted by fair batted ball, your out.

True- if you've already made the leap in logic of applying the definition from the rule covering one specific game action to this completely different game action.

Originally Posted by MigoP

The OBR rules I cited 6.03. 6.06a. Say exactly what I said they say. Everyone with a book feel free to read for yourselves. Which kind of implies you didn't take the time to read them.

I didn't read them? Right. I must have the OBR rule book memorized to the point that I can quote the exact rule number of the exact rule that applies here without looking in the book. I'm good, but I'm not that good...

But, no, the OBR does not say "exactly what you said they say." It doesn't say that being "in the box" for a batter being hit by his own batted ball is defined exactly the same as when a batter contacts the pitch with the bat. It defines it as the same foot position when a batter is in the box prior to the pitch. I believe that there is a flaw in how their rule is written, but that is how it is written.

Might be a worthy topic for discussion...on the baseball forum.

Originally Posted by MigoP

You don't have to attend a clinic for this one as they have incorporated these rules in the book already. Read, read and re-read,the answers usually there.

I think that if the rule book did have a clear definition of being "out of the box" on this play, then this question wouldn't pop up time and again and you wouldn't have so many different answers and interpretations being given here by so many different, knowledgable, qualified umpires.

The fact that it's being debated here is evidence that the printed rule is unclear.

And that is really my point. I'm not saying that "one foot out of the box" wouldn't be a good standard to apply, or that you're nuts for thinking it should apply. I'm saying that as the rules are currently written, an umpire is forced to assume that the requirements of one rule, covering one situation, apply uniformly to a different situation covered in a different rule. That just seems to me like a bad way to come up with a ruling. Why not add wording to the rule that better defines it and eliminates the need for that leap in logic?