Two Questions: Ball hits batter, Overthrow

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Jaycec

I thought you were considered out of the box if either foot is completely outside the box (not touching the box) and on the ground. Wouldn't this be the same for hitting and, in this case, touching the ball?

Please let me know if I'm wrong, but if by "the rest of her body was outside the box" you're talking about a foot on the ground completely outside the box, I've got an interference.

The batter is still in the box if either foot or other body part is touching the box.
The ball in or out is not the criteria.

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The batter is still in the box if either foot or other body part is touching the box.
The ball in or out is not the criteria.

So for hitting, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = out of the box.
But for running, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = not out of the box.

That doesn't seem right. Anyone have a specific rule for me?

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by Jaycec

So for hitting, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = out of the box.
Put for running, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = not out of the box.

That doesn't seem right. Anyone have a specific rule for me?

I Googled this type of play and found an answer from Dr. Mark Ambrose on an Experts forum at About.com. His credentials seem pretty solid.

You can view his answer here

This seems to make sense given the rules of when a batter is considered in the box and when she isn't. ASA tends to be very consistent.

I believe the OP should have called the batter out when she touched the ball given she was out of the box.

Edited to add: Again, assuming "most of her body" includes a foot touching the ground outside the lines.

[argodad]

I believe we are over-thinking this one. There's some point in time in each of these situations where the batter goes from "in the box" to "out of the box." It is a judgment call. Make your judgment based on the information you have, then sell your call. Personally, I give the batter the benefit of the doubt. If in doubt, "Dead Ball! Foul!"

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by argodad

I believe we are over-thinking this one. There's some point in time in each of these situations where the batter goes from "in the box" to "out of the box." It is a judgment call. Make your judgment based on the information you have, then sell your call. Personally, I give the batter the benefit of the doubt. If in doubt, "Dead Ball! Foul!"

Correct. That point is precisely when a foot touches outside the box.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Jaycec

So for hitting, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = out of the box.
But for running, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = not out of the box.

That doesn't seem right. Anyone have a specific rule for me?

Regardless of seeming right, two separate rules, one about illegal batting, the other about baserunning/interference.

"hitting, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = out of the box" - discrete boundary, observable object, the batter's foot is either there or not

"running, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = not out of the box" - the entire box is treated as foul territory for batter position only, because the mass of the batter's body being over the foul line or not is nearly impossible to judge when in motion. Yes, the accepted view is if the batter has either foot or other body part touching the box, the batter is in the box.

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Regardless of seeming right, two separate rules, one about illegal batting, the other about baserunning/interference.

"hitting, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = out of the box" - discrete boundary, observable object, the batter's foot is either there or not

"running, one foot on the ground and completely out of the box = not out of the box" - the entire box is treated as foul territory for batter position only, because the mass of the batter's body being over the foul line or not is nearly impossible to judge when in motion. Yes, the accepted view is if the batter has either foot or other body part touching the box, the batter is in the box.

Can you cite the two separate rules that you speak of? Until you can, I'm going with the rule that is actually in the book - one foot outside the box = outside the box. I can't find the logic in doing the opposite regardless of what you think the accepted view is.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Jaycec

Can you cite the two separate rules that you speak of? Until you can, I'm going with the rule that is actually in the book - one foot outside the box = outside the box. I can't find the logic in doing the opposite regardless of what you think the accepted view is.

NFHS
2-25-f
7-4-8
7-4-13 exc and case

How is "one foot out = out of box" more logical than "one foot in = in box"? It's the other way around, and we have discussed this more than once in the forum and agreed that is the case.

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

NFHS
2-25-f
7-4-8
7-4-13 exc and case

How is "one foot out = out of box" more logical than "one foot in = in box"? It's the other way around, and we have discussed this more than once in the forum and agreed that is the case.

I don't have a NFHS rulebook. I do have an ASA rule book, and the rule I cited is more logical because it actually appears in the rule book.

Sorry I've missed your discussions; I'm new here. Can you give me a link?

From what I'm seeing right now, the ASA rule book has one rule about when a player is in/out of the box. You're claiming it changes based on batter/batter-runner. I don't see any reason for thinking this. Again, a link would be helpful I suppose. The only link I found confirmed my belief.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

the entire box is treated as foul territory for batter position only, because the mass of the batter's body being over the foul line or not is nearly impossible to judge when in motion. Yes, the accepted view is if the batter has either foot or other body part touching the box, the batter is in the box.

Where did you get mixing up the batter's box with foul territory? Two completely separate entities that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did you get mixing up the batter's box with foul territory? Two completely separate entities that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Agree. Sorry if I was too focused on trying to separate the two rules presented by Jaycec.

The "for batter position only" meant that a batter still in the box is treated as if in foul ground, so a batter struck by a batted ball while in any part of the batters box results in a foul ball.