Is "By the book" the way to call this one?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I'm in agreement as to not call this but as devils advocate:

When the batter bailed he also had no intent on swinging. Yet when the ball hit the bat we all agree it's a foul.
In this situation why is intent ignored for one rule and applied for another?

I don't believe it is ignored, it is just not explained one way or the other in the rules. I believe it states that the batter is out if he hits the ball while (depending on the code) standing out of the box. Therefore intent seems to be a reasonable method to resolve that which is not interpreted for us.

In the case of a foul ball, it pretty black and white. Did it hit the bat or not?
Intent means nothing here.