McCarver's idea of a good call

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BretMan

This one comes up from time-to-time and the play in question is being kicked around on several forums.

We have rules that clearly define when a batter is considered "in the box" prior to a pitch.

There are rules covering a batter being "in the box" when contacting a pitch with the bat.

But there isn't a rule that specifically defines what constitutes being "in the box" for a batter being contacted by his own batted ball.

A batter being contacted by his own batted ball while still being "in the box" is regarded as a foul ball- and he could be anywhere "in the box", despite McCarver's attempt to delineate a "fair" and "foul" portion of the box, which really doesn't apply on this play.

So what interpretation covers this? If the batter still has one foot in the box is he still regarded as being "in the box"? Does he need to have both feet in the box? Are the feet disregarded and the contact judged by any portion of the batter's body extending out beyond the boundary lines of the batter's box?

I'm guessing this is one of those interpretations covered by the professional umpire's manual- the one that I don't have any access to!

Forget the box.

Take a runner coming down the third base line who gets hit by a batted ball. What determines if he is out or not...the position of one foot, or the position of the ball and body part when he is hit?

I don't have access to additional replays this morning, but as I remember the event at the time, contact was made in front of the plate, not in the "fair" portion of the batter's box.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Forget the box.

Take a runner coming down the third base line who gets hit by a batted ball. What determines if he is out or not...the position of one foot, or the position of the ball and body part when he is hit?

But if we "forget the box" we won't be able to make any sensible call on this play!

Being struck while either in or out of the box is what determines the difference between a foul ball and the batter being called out. So we had best not forget about it.

In your analogy, the fair or foul status of the ball as it hits the runner is clearly defined by rule and that rule can be verified by anybody with a rule book.

A batter being struck by his own batted ball while still in the batter's box is covered by interpretation- an interpretation that conflicts with other written rules and appears in materials not readily available to the general public.

Other posters have stated that they have the "official interpretation". I suppose that "because I said so" might fly, but let's pretend I'm from Missouri.

Show me!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BretMan

But if we "forget the box" we won't be able to make any sensible call on this play!

Being struck while either in or out of the box is what determines the difference between a foul ball and the batter being called out. So we had best not forget about it.

I probably should not have assumed that you knew I was making an analogy by saying, "forget the box." My error.

... the fair or foul status of the (batted )ball as it hits the runner is clearly defined by rule and that rule can be verified by anybody with a rule book.

Excellent. You're almost there. Read the rule again.

[BretMan]

I could read the rules again...and again...and again...but that would not change the fact that, in regards to the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there exists an interpretation that proves to be the exception to the rule.

There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play.

I understand the analogy you were trying to make, but that analogy takes the leap of faith of equating a foul line with the batter's box lines and a batter who has just hit the ball with a runner already on base. There are rules and interpretations that clearly make distictions and exceptions between these conditions.

I have the J/R manual and had read the quoted passage before posting. I have also seen the Evan's interpretation before and that is what led me to believe this play should have been ruled as a foul ball.

As the Evan's interpretation says, "the ball is ruled foul if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box".

What I was looking for was something published in black and white- as opposed to something interpolated from other unrelated rules- that gives a clear definition of the phrase "within the confines of the batter's box".

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I could read the rules again...and again...and again...but that would not change the fact that, in regards to the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there exists an interpretation that proves to be the exception to the rule.

There is no rule in the professional rule book or OBR that addresses the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there is no rule about it! (FED addresses it, but not the OBR)

We only have the unofficial interps from J/R, JEA, BRD, to go on. I don't recall what or if the PBUC manual might say about it. I'm sure somebody out there will check.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

There is no rule in the professional rule book or OBR that addresses the batter being struck by a batted ball while in the batter's box, there is no rule about it!

Exactly true and it wasn't implying that there is.

Which fits right in with the next sentence from that post: "There is no rule to be read that defines whether or not the batter is technically "in" or "out" of the batter's box on this play."

What I was refering to in the part you quoted is that there are rules about runners being struck by fair batted balls, but there are exceptions to these rules offered by interpretation (ie: the exception of the batter still being within the batter's box).

I take it that the rules Garth is encouraging me to read are the unrelated rules from which he is drawing his analogy- but that is just my guess.