ASA April Clarifications are posted
 

Play: B6, a slap hitter, is hit by a pitch a) while out of the front of the box and b) while out of the front of the box preventing the ball from entering the strike zone.

Ruling: In (a) the ball is dead and a ball is awarded the batter and in (b) the ball is dead and a strike called on the batter.

Is a slap hitter out of the front of the box automatically considered to have made no effort to avoid being hit? :confused:


Play: B1 hits a soft line drive to the left of F6 which enters the pocket of his glove and then allows the ball to fall to the ground before securing it to create a double play possibility.

Ruling: If in the judgment of the umpire, the ball entered the pocket of the fielder’s glove and the fielder caught the ball and then intentionally let it drop from the glove, the ball is dead, the batter is out and runners return to the last base touched at the time of the pitch.

It might be more useful if they made it clear that the fielder must first complete a catch that meets the definition of "a catch" under rule 1. Then, the batter is out on the catch, the ball becomes dead on the drop.

As written, it almost makes it sound like the ball just "entered the pocket of the glove" then was allowed to drop (even though they do say the ball was caught in the "Ruling"). I could see someone not familiar with this rule (just the sort of person a rule clarification is aimed at) reading that as the ball was guided to the ground.

Well, to be out of the box to the front, the batter must be moving into the pitch.

I wouldn't doubt that this was published because you probably had umpires who were literally waiting for a demonstration of control and voluntary release to make the ID call and, in turn, not calling the ID when it was quite apparent that it should have been.

The batter cannot legally hit the ball out of the box; the batter has no real valid reason to be out the front of the box before the pitch reaches the hitting area. It sounds to me like the ruling isn't saying the batter is presumed to have made no effort (that's like ruling on intent); instead, they are saying the batter has no standing out there, and is (effectively) no longer someone with the rights of a batter who is in the box.

Think about it; the batter's rights while in the box are 1) to hit the pitch with the bat, 2) be protected from causing accidental interference by sole virtue of being in the box, and 3) to be awarded a base if hit by a pitch (subject to yada, yada). Once out of the box, the batter 1) cannot legally contact the ball with the bat, 2) and is not protected if interfering accidentally. Sems to me that 3) is now clarified as rights no longer given, either.

Sounds reasonable to me, Steve.

But...if they're trying to CLARIFY the play, maybe they should have said something like what you posted! Instead, they give a rule reference (8-1-F) to back up the ruling that: Doesn't mention anything about the batter being in or out of the box, and; Says the batter is awarded first base when hit by the pitch.

It just seems that if something is supposed to be clarified, then you shouldn't have to make your own assumptions about what they "really mean".

Obviously, we need you three to clarify the clarifications. Maybe someone other than the author (who understands what they mean) should read clarifications before publishing ( and cases, RS, etc. - even rules). :cool: