Is that fair?
 

Is any portion of the batter's box in fair territory? Assuming so, if the batter stands with one foot in the fair portion of the box, and his batted ball hits this foot, what is the ruling?

bsaucer,

Yes.

FOUL!!

JM

Just over 13% of the total size of the box.

Ditto to what JM said.

Unless the batter is Tiny Tim, some part of him is going to be in foul territory and that's all it takes to make a ball foul.

I don't follow.

By (a literal reading of the) rule, the batter would be out if he's hit by a fair ball in fair territory. It wouldn't matter that one foot (the foot not hit by the ball) was in foul territory.

By interp, it's foul if it hits the batter while the batter is still in the box. It's a common question for newer umpires.

In Fed, it is plainly written, though. OBR, there's nothing to defend the "in the box" rule.

What? Whatever happened to "it's the location of the ball, not the player"?

As Bob said, it's by interpretation and tradition that we call a foul when a batter is hit while in the box, regardless of where in the box.

Unless the batter is hit with his fair ball while he has one foot on the ground completely out of the batter's box. The new rules will reflect this currently enforced interpretation.

If he's hit with his foot completely out of the batter's box, he's not in the batter's box.

I believe the rule says: "If the batter is hit by his own batted ball when he is anywhere near the batter's box, it shall be ruled a foul ball, and the call shall be sold strongly."

The "foot completely out of the box" stuff is a different rule. It applies only at the moment the bat hits the ball.

The new rule in the memo floating around says (added text in the rule is in blue):

6.05

(g) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder. If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 6.03, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball;

That doesn't make any sense. 6.03 defines the batter's initial position in the box (both feet within the lines). The rule is more lenient when he contacts the ball with the bat (no foot can be on the ground completely out of the box). This means the batter can hit the ball while legally in the box, be hit by the ball and be called out for being hit by a fair ball while out of the box.

I like my version better.

I think the same rules change has an interp (or something) that if the batter has one foot on the ground outside the batters box when he's hit (and assuming the ball is over fair terrotory when it hits him), the batter is out.

There has been discussion in the past whther one foot or two feet were required to be out of the box before the batter could be out.

C'mon Dash, now you're just makin' sh*t up. There is NO rule that says that. That is not even an official interp. Not a rule in OBR, NCAA, or FED.

Or is this another case where my chain is being yanked?

It was a chain yank. It is also a very common (unwritten) interp.

FED 7-2-1f: A strike is charged to the batter when: a batted ball contacts the batter in the batter's box (foul ball).

Right: the FED rule expresses explicitly and is based on the (unwritten) OBR interp.

I don't see a problem. The new rule says if the batter is in a LEGAL position, NOT "initial" position, when hit it's foul.

I think he's is legally in the box UNTIL one foor touches the ground completely outsde the batter's box - because he can legally hit the ball up to that point.

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.

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

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.

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

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.