Is that fair?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The rule you posted referenced 6.03 for the batter's "legal position" in the box.

And when does it cease being legal??

The only "guidance" we have is that when he hits the ball with one or both feen on the ground entirely out of the box it's illegally hit.

So up until then, he must be legally in the box.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And when does it cease being legal??

According to 6.03, when both feet are not within the lines of the box.

The only "guidance" we have is that when he hits the ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely out of the box it's illegally hit.

That "guidance" is for when the batter hits the ball, not when the batted ball hits him. The new rule defines legal position when he is hit with the ball (6.03). As written, according to the new rule, if the batter is hit by a batted ball and both feet are not within the lines of the box, he is out.

I am sure that is not what they meant, but that is what they wrote.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

According to 6.03, when both feet are not within the lines of the box.

So I can have one foot out of the box and be legal?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

According to 6.03, when both feet are not within the lines of the box.

As Rich's question suggests, this expression is ambiguous between:
a. it's not the case that both feet are within the lines, i.e., one or both feet are outside the box, or
b. both feet are outside the box.

I'm confident that you mean (a).

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As Rich's question suggests, this expression is ambiguous between:
a. it's not the case that both feet are within the lines, i.e., one or both feet are outside the box, or
b. both feet are outside the box.

I'm confident that you mean (a).

Thank you. I had hoped Rich would share your confidence.