McNeely's ruling seems consistent with the wording in the FED case book.

But for game-management purpose, I consider Runchy gave the better answer. If it happens immediately, 'foul' is the expected call.

Well, after rephrasing the question to a bouncing ball instead of one just laying there, I just got another response that says one foot in is still in so I am confused. Still waiting to hear from Roder.

Maybe Carl needs to sort this out for the 2008 BRD.

The issue is perception. With a batted ball laying on the ground clearly in fair territory, and the batter steps on it, kicks it, or otherwise contacts it as he's leaving the batter's box, you're faced with one of those "who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes" situations if you try to force a foul ball call. The ball was PLAINLY in fair territory because it was on the ground where it's obvious.

When the ball is airborne when it contacts the batter who is leaving the box, then the reality is much more judgmental and tenuous, and professional interpretation guides us to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter. It's the non-sticky end of the stick.

Where the ball is when the contact occurs - on the ground or in the air - is key to this call, and is, I believe, the reason for contradictory answers from the authorities that have been queried.

I also think there's a difference between a batter contacting a motionless ball, and a batter being contacted by a moving ball.

Roder says FOUL. Runchey says FOUL. McNeely says FOUL after rephrasing the question (motionless vs. bouncing). None of the FED coaches have read the case book, or the rule book for that matter. I am a convert on this subject. One foot in the box, he is still in the box. I got it....