In the box and out....

[greymule]

I have a batter hit by a pitch

I read the OP that way, too, the first time. But I think "does the bunt thing" means "bunts the ball." So it was the batted ball, not the pitch, that hit the ground and bounced up into the batter, whose feet were in the box.

This is a foul unless the batter (even with feet in the box) obviously deliberately interferes with the ball over fair territory. Nothing in the OP suggests that this happened.

We don't know from the OP whether the ball was over fair or foul territory when the ball hit the batter. If the contact was over foul territory, then in ASA (not NCAA) the ball is foul even if the batter deliberately interferes.

Calling an out for "leaning" is utter nonsense.

[Skahtboi]

Yup. No rule against "leaning" that I have ever read, unless it was a deliberate attempt to interfere with the ball. This should have just been a dead ball, and a strike added to the count, unless of course it was the third strike.

Originally Posted by greymule

I have a batter hit by a pitch

I read the OP that way, too, the first time. But I think "does the bunt thing" means "bunts the ball." So it was the batted ball, not the pitch, that hit the ground and bounced up into the batter, whose feet were in the box.

This is a foul unless the batter (even with feet in the box) obviously deliberately interferes with the ball over fair territory. Nothing in the OP suggests that this happened.

We don't know from the OP whether the ball was over fair or foul territory when the ball hit the batter. If the contact was over foul territory, then in ASA (not NCAA) the ball is foul even if the batter deliberately interferes.

Calling an out for "leaning" is utter nonsense.

"Doing the bunt thing" threw me off. He didn't say if it was a bunted ball or just an attempt. I think you got it right

[Chess Ref]

Sorry , it sounded clear in my head. I think I fixed it.

Yes it was a bunt, the ball was in fair territory. It definetly did not seem "intentional" and my partner never said that. He just kept talking about "leaning".

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

Sorry , it sounded clear in my head. I think I fixed it.

Yes it was a bunt, the ball was in fair territory. It definetly did not seem "intentional" and my partner never said that. He just kept talking about "leaning".

Point him to the rule book and ask him to tell you where it discusses "leaning" as an issue.

[wadeintothem]

You knew the answer. You should have trusted that and set him straight after the game... or maybe even a few innings later.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You knew the answer. You should have trusted that and set him straight after the game... or maybe even a few innings later.

Well I don't know about the setting him straight part.
My rough estimate is maybe 10 % of the blues i work with are interested in doing it right. Now 90% will tell you how wonderful they are and don't need to talk about things....

This particular blue is more of a baseball guy. So it seems he has the attitude of "gracing me" with his presence, wisdom, and knowledge everytime I work with him. Not too likely he's gonna take to me settin him straight about anything...

[DaveASA/FED]

Those are the best to screw with....or i mean to set straight. I usually have a sense of humor about it, or act stupid about it. One of those with book in hand, hey all I see is the mentioning of the batter being in the box when they are hit with the ball....show me where it mentioned leaning? I want to understand this rule better. Most time when those types are asked to justify with a rule reference where they came up with stuff they get real quiet! And if they can then I might learn something....