Two Questions: Ball hits batter, Overthrow

[kyleflan]

My first question comes from a game I umped two days ago. I had a 10U game, ASA. When the batter hit the ball, it basically went directly up and then to the left a little bit, hitting the batter's right leg, which was still in the box. However, most of the rest of her body was out of the box, as she was running to 1B. I ruled a foul ball since the ball hit the leg while it was still in the box. No one argued this call, but I was just wondering if this was the right call.

Second question comes from the rule book. Rule 8 section G. I'm wondering how you all define an overthrow vs losing possession. Isn't an overthrow essentially a fielder losing possession of the ball (i.e. throwing the ball) that then goes into dead ball territory? Or is voluntarily releasing the ball not technically considered losing possession?

I only ask this because ASA says that in the case of an overthrow, runners are awarded two bases; when a fielder loses possession, runners are awarded one base. Just some food for thought.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by kyleflan

My first question comes from a game I umped two days ago. I had a 10U game, ASA. When the batter hit the ball, it basically went directly up and then to the left a little bit, hitting the batter's right leg, which was still in the box. However, most of the rest of her body was out of the box, as she was running to 1B. I ruled a foul ball since the ball hit the leg while it was still in the box. No one argued this call, but I was just wondering if this was the right call.

Second question comes from the rule book. Rule 8 section G. I'm wondering how you all define an overthrow vs losing possession. Isn't an overthrow essentially a fielder losing possession of the ball (i.e. throwing the ball) that then goes into dead ball territory? Or is voluntarily releasing the ball not technically considered losing possession?

I only ask this because ASA says that in the case of an overthrow, runners are awarded two bases; when a fielder loses possession, runners are awarded one base. Just some food for thought.

Kyle,
On your first question - yes the batter is still in the box (had to be since the ball was still in the box, right)

For your second question, think about this. In order to lose possession, the fielder must have had possession. If your fielder never fully caught the ball, that's an overthrow. If your fielder caught the ball and lost it while attempting a tag or while removing it from the glove or something else along those lines, that fielder lost possession.

[SC Ump]

#1 - I agree is still in the box.

#2 - I could not find a definition of "throw" in the rule book, but fortunately Webster defined it. In all cases (horse threw a rider, car threw a piston, sun threw a shadow, judge threw the book) the subject performed a specific action that caused an effect on the object. I think you will know when the fielder is throwing the ball.

Traditionally I have been taught the "lose possession" ruling is when the possession is lost during an attempted tag on a put out.

[Dakota]

Speaking ASA

RULE 1 - THE DEFINITIONS
OVERTHROW: Occurs when a thrown ball from a fielder goes
A. beyond the boundary lines of the playing field (dead ball territory),
B. or becomes a blocked ball.

RULES SUPPLEMENT (2007)
38. OVERTHROWS.
Runners are always awarded two bases on balls that are overthrown or
become blocked as a result of hitting loose equipment that belongs to the
defensive team and should not be on the field (RS #18)....
EXCEPTION: ...
When a fielder loses possession of the ball on an attempted tag and the ball
then enters dead ball territory or becomes blocked, all runners are awarded
one base from the base last touched at the time the ball entered dead ball
territory, or became blocked.

[kyleflan]

Thanks for the input. I had the basic idea, but I just have to bring up technicalities, ya know. Haha, thanks again.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking ASA

Operative words being "loses possession", requiring possession first. IOW, is failing to catch because trying to soon to make the tag losing possession. I believe not, but anyone disagree?

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

#1 - I agree is still in the box.

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.

[SC Ump]

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.

I don't know that there is any definitive rule about when a batter is in or out of the box. It does say that if she hits the ball with one foot completely outside the box, then it is an out. However, it does not state that if one foot is in and one foot is out, whether or not she is considered in or out for the purposes of this rule. My understanding is that if the ball is in or over the box when it hits her, then that is a foul ball. Perhaps you can find a rule quote to support one way or the other.

[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.