Yes, you are calling "dead ball" and calling the pitch a ball. That is the official interpretation in PONY.

Interesting that this question came up within a day of the official interpretation being published regarding this specific issue. ;)

What rule change.

I receive valuable rule interps via email from my PONY UIC, as others here obviously do as well. I've thanked him for bringing up this critical rule, and told him that I'm posting it here.

I happen to enjoy (and learn much from) the lively debates I read here, and assumed (correctly) that this one would bring up related issues that I can use to improve my performance.

IOW, I'm not questioning his interp.

Yes...and if I am working a sanction which no longer requires the batter to attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch, and the batter is hit in the area you describe without the pitch being a strike, I am awarding first base. I am also assuming that the batter did not move to be hit by the pitch.

The rule change made in some sanctions (NCAA, NFHS, PONY) that no longer requires the batter to attempt to avoid being hit by an errant pitch in order to be awarded first base.

I am well aware that this change has not been made in ASA at this time.

Maybe Im missing something in reading through the posts, but the verbage "entirely within the batters box" has nothing to do with the batter. It is in reference to the pitched ball which must be entirely within the batters box for the batter to not have to attempt to avoid.

And the "no need to avoid" only applies to that type of pitch, AFAIK

OK ... so there should be no confusion over what was intended in either code. ASA has no change, thus you should rule as you said you would (and did). Pony does... so your assertion that you would rule HBP in the OP is just wrong.

...and that is the basis of my unintended consequence.

Should the batter have to avoid an errant pitch that is not a strike if the pitched ball is not entirely within the batter's box?

The intent of the rule change (IMHO) was to remove the requirement for the batter to have to attempt to avoid a pitch that was thrown where it shouldn't have been. Adding the verbiage about the batter's box makes it seem as if the batter has to avoid some errant pitches to get first, but not others.

Prior to the rule change, what would you have ruled in PONY in the OP?

Andy, and this is my problem with the new rule. Should a pitcher not be able to miss off the inside corner by 2" for fear of hitting the batter who is crowding the plate just begging to get hit? Since the rule has gone into effect, I have seen more and more batters with their toes right on the line with knees, elbows and hands well into the area between the plate and the box. There is no way they can hit an inside pitch standing there, they are doing it on purpose to try and keep the pitcher off the inside, and if the pitcher does throw inside to get hit.

The girl I called back to the plate in first round of state tournament I would have called back to the plate even if she hadnt rolled her shoulder into the pitch. She was crowding the plate so bad even though the pitch was high and slightly inside it was no where near being entirely in the batters box. Barring some clarification to the contrary I believe the rule is exactly as worded, if the ball is not entirely within the batters box the batter must still make an attempt to avoid being hit.

hbp.

I hear what you're saying, ruleset confusion aside. I really do.

But given that the batter must, by rule, begin the pitch in the batter's box - why would it be unnatural to not protect a batter who is hit by a ball that is not in the batter's box? Obviously, if the ball was not within the batter's box, and neither was the hitter initially - if the ball hits the batter, the batter did SOMETHING to cause it to do so. Why should that batter get a base?

Given your explanation of what you think SHOULD be, your problem with the rule doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you don't think it's fair for a batter to crowd the plate and take away that inside pitch, and then benefit from it when she's hit. The new rule is MORE in line with that thinking ... not less!

My comment was in response to this in which it sounds like Andy would award 1st base in exactly the situation I have described.

I personally believe the rule does require the batter to avoid being hit if the ball is not entirely within the batters box. That is why I stated until some other clarification comes down that is different than the way the rule is worded it only absolves the batter of an attempt to avoid if the ball is entirely in the box.