I agree that with one foot completely out of the box, the OP should be an out, for much the same reasons that Steve has already stated.

I'm beginnng to wonder if the "P" stands for Piano. ;)

Ugh - thanks for that punch in the gut.

The rules define what's considered being "out of the box" prior to receiving the pitch. They also define being "out of the box" when the pitch is contacted with the bat. Those are two separate and distinct scenarios, covered by two different rules, each that have their own different requirements.

For a batted ball hitting the batter-runner, that is a third scenario, a completely different game action. Is it inconceivable that a scenario completely different than the other two might have a different definition for being "out of the box"?

We have here three different scenarios where the umpire has to rule that the "batter is out of the box" (let's call them "A", "B" and "C", respectively). We know that the definition in "A" is not the same as in "B". "C" is not specifically defined in the rule that applies to this play.

If we just assume that "C" is the same as "B"...there is your "leap in logic".

True- if you've already made the leap in logic of applying the definition from the rule covering one specific game action to this completely different game action.

I didn't read them? Right. I must have the OBR rule book memorized to the point that I can quote the exact rule number of the exact rule that applies here without looking in the book. I'm good, but I'm not that good...

But, no, the OBR does not say "exactly what you said they say." It doesn't say that being "in the box" for a batter being hit by his own batted ball is defined exactly the same as when a batter contacts the pitch with the bat. It defines it as the same foot position when a batter is in the box prior to the pitch. I believe that there is a flaw in how their rule is written, but that is how it is written.

Might be a worthy topic for discussion...on the baseball forum.

I think that if the rule book did have a clear definition of being "out of the box" on this play, then this question wouldn't pop up time and again and you wouldn't have so many different answers and interpretations being given here by so many different, knowledgable, qualified umpires.

The fact that it's being debated here is evidence that the printed rule is unclear.

And that is really my point. I'm not saying that "one foot out of the box" wouldn't be a good standard to apply, or that you're nuts for thinking it should apply. I'm saying that as the rules are currently written, an umpire is forced to assume that the requirements of one rule, covering one situation, apply uniformly to a different situation covered in a different rule. That just seems to me like a bad way to come up with a ruling. Why not add wording to the rule that better defines it and eliminates the need for that leap in logic?

The 1st rule defines where the batters feet need to be in the box on contact or she's out. 7.4. art.a. NFHS.
Rule 7.3 art 1.penalty NFHS. A batter can have 1 foot out of the box prior to delivery of pitch. She does so at the risk of having a strike called while being out of position. If the pitch is a strike when she has 1 foot out it shall be called a strike or ball accordingly. 7.3 art 1. effects 2. NFHS. She does not have to stay in box during or prior to pitch but must accept ball or srike call.
Rule 7.2 art 1 f. NFHS. A strike is called if a batted ball contacts the batter in the batters box.(foul ball).
Rule 8.6 art.11. NFHS. The runner is out when struck with a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base and before it passes an infielder. Since the previous rule defines hit by batted ball in box as foul, the latter rule defines hit by batted ball out of box,(out). Theses are NFHS rules not OBR.
For you folks who need it in just softball rules I believe this should cover it. All NFHS rulings. I would like to hear some of you please cite me Softball rules NFHS that are contrary to these. They are very clear.

One of our other members once posted that a member of the NFHS softball rule committee said:

"For purpose of this rule only, being out of the box is defined as having both feet on the ground outside of the box."

This was never contradicted or reversed by that (now former) member of the Committee or by anyone in authority at NFHS, so it's my basis.

I don't have that book here... but I don't remember this worded so ridiculously. So ... if the pitch is a strike,... it shall be called a strike or ball. What? And then a rule that says the batter must accept the strike or ball call? What?

7.3 art 1 penalty. Read the rule and it will answer your question.
What someone says and whats in the book are 2 different things. I'll stay with the book until NFHS changes it. If she steps out of box pitch is to be called strike. She has no choice.
I misspoke when I said ball or strike,its a strike.

2 things...

What you say is in the book and what's in the book are also 2 different things.

AND

Please stop telling people to read the rule. Saying that is insulting and implies no one here has read the rules, and I assure you, 99% have (including specifically those you continue to insult in this manner).

I'm not trying to be insulting but opinions not backed up by rule are open to interpretations. Why wouldn't you cite rules to back your case. We should just take peoples opinions as fact when we have a rule book.
What 2 things are different? Rules please.

I would be happy with that if it weren't a "he said, she said" statement.

If there were something in print either in the form of a rules change, clarification, or simply a case play we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Until there is a clarification, it is apparent we will have two theories.

How did this thread get from a BR hit with a fair batted ball to whether or not a strike shall be called if the batter has a foot out of the batter's box?

I'm just surprised nobody has mentioned beer yet!

We're not even talking OBR and I'm confused!

A lot of people change the subject when losing the debate. :rolleyes:


Did I mention politicians and wives somewhere? ;)