How would you call these two plays?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Steve M

In #1, OUT. The player contacted the ball.

In #2, OUT. Assuming that the ball contacts the batter-runner outside the box, the player has a responsibility not to get hit by the batted ball. If the ball & contact is within the box, I've got a FOUL.

Steve, what rule book are you going by? In ASA, this is not the case. Not sure what other rule books say...

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Steve, what rule book are you going by? In ASA, this is not the case. Not sure what other rule books say...

I think you'd better go back and re-read what happened, where it happened, and what the books say.
In play 1, the ball did not hit or contact the runner, the runner kicked the ball and the ball is out of the box.
For play 2, look at what I said earlier.

[greymule]

I should have specified ASA.

From the definition of foul ball: A batted ball that touches the batter or the bat in the batter's hand(s) a second time while the batter is in the batter's box.

8-2-F-4 Batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with [sic] by making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.

So I guess it hinges on how "in the batter's box" is defined.

I have been calling play #1 an out and play #2 a foul. It seemed to me that running into the ball in fair territory was an out, but "ball hits batter" while she still has a foot in the box was a foul. Now it may be that in some of these play #2 cases the ball was actually in the box while the BR's foot was out of the box, or it was close enough that a foul call was what everybody expected. But I have to admit to myself that I have been inconsistent, since in theory play 1 and play 2 are two versions of the same thing.

A strict reading of the book would indicate that in both cases, the BR is out. In play number 2, however, the benefit any doubt would go to the batter. This play is so common in FP; they bunt and then run into the ball, with the exact placement of their feet not quite clear. I guess play #2 is a default foul unless you're certain.

I certainly appreciate the input.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by greymule

I should have specified ASA.

From the definition of foul ball: A batted ball that touches the batter or the bat in the batter's hand(s) a second time while the batter is in the batter's box.

8-2-F-4 Batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with [sic] by making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.

So I guess it hinges on how "in the batter's box" is defined.

I have been calling play #1 an out and play #2 a foul. It seemed to me that running into the ball in fair territory was an out, but "ball hits batter" while she still has a foot in the box was a foul. Now it may be that in some of these play #2 cases the ball was actually in the box while the BR's foot was out of the box, or it was close enough that a foul call was what everybody expected. But I have to admit to myself that I have been inconsistent, since in theory play 1 and play 2 are two versions of the same thing.

A strict reading of the book would indicate that in both cases, the BR is out. In play number 2, however, the benefit any doubt would go to the batter. This play is so common in FP; they bunt and then run into the ball, with the exact placement of their feet not quite clear. I guess play #2 is a default foul unless you're certain.

I certainly appreciate the input.

GREYMULE
A strict reading of the book would indicate that in both cases, the BR is out.

Strict? Rule One C and D leave no room for an interpretation.

The batter's box offers no batter protection from being called out for touching a ball in fair territory.

In play number 2, however, the benefit any doubt would go to the batter. This play is so common in FP; they bunt and then run into the ball, with the exact placement of their feet not quite clear. I guess play #2 is a default foul unless you're certain.

Either the ball is fair or foul. What benefit of doubt is there? The decision has nothing to do with the batter's feet,,,,,it has all to do with the position of the ball. If the only portion of the batter in fair territory was the tip of his cap and a fair ball hits it, the batter is out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Either the ball is fair or foul. What benefit of doubt is there? The decision has nothing to do with the batter's feet,,,,,it has all to do with the position of the ball. If the only portion of the batter in fair territory was the tip of his cap and a fair ball hits it, the batter is out.

Maybe you should check out Page 222 of the Umpire's Manual.

Also, Caseplay 7.4-9 and Rule 7.4.H

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Maybe you should check out Page 222 of the Umpire's Manual.

Also, Caseplay 7.4-9 and Rule 7.4.H

A batter hit by a fair ball cannot be in the batter's box.

[greymule]

A batter hit by a fair ball cannot be in the batter's box.

True—because even if the ball is over fair territory when it contacts the batter, if the batter is in the box, it's a foul ball.

I've seen that one countless times.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

A batter hit by a fair ball cannot be in the batter's box.

What does that have to do with the citations? Nothing. And, CP 7.4-9 with R 7.4.H would contradict your contention that the feet have nothing to do with it.

Edited to withdraw statement.