HBP Out of the Batters Box (PONY)

[Andy]

My opinion only.....

Several years ago, I had a play where a batter was hit by a pitch while she was clearly out of the batter's box. She was not swinging and the pitch was not in the strike zone. I called the dead ball and awarded her first base. the defensive coach went nuts claiming that her being out of the box negated the HBP and she was not entitled to first base. He wanted to protest, and with me being a fairly new umpire at the time, stopped the game and sent for the UIC. His response was that it didn't matter where the batter was, if the pitch wasn't a strike, and the batter tried to avoid it, the batter gets first base. This happened well before the recent rule change taking away the requirement for the batter to attempt to avoid the errant pitch.

It is my opinion that this philosophy still holds true. The intent of the rule change was to take away the requirement for the batter to attempt to avoid an errant pitch. The addition of "in the batter's box" was placed there to help further define what may be considered an errant pitch, not to limit the effect of the rule to pitches only in that location. In rule sets where the "attempt to avoid" requirement has been removed, I will continue to award first base to batter that is hit by a pitch that is not a strike.

This excludes NCAA, which specifically addresses a batter being hit with the pitch that is outside of the batter's box.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

My opinion only.....

Several years ago, I had a play where a batter was hit by a pitch while she was clearly out of the batter's box. She was not swinging and the pitch was not in the strike zone. I called the dead ball and awarded her first base. the defensive coach went nuts claiming that her being out of the box negated the HBP and she was not entitled to first base. He wanted to protest, and with me being a fairly new umpire at the time, stopped the game and sent for the UIC. His response was that it didn't matter where the batter was, if the pitch wasn't a strike, and the batter tried to avoid it, the batter gets first base. This happened well before the recent rule change taking away the requirement for the batter to attempt to avoid the errant pitch.

It is my opinion that this philosophy still holds true. The intent of the rule change was to take away the requirement for the batter to attempt to avoid an errant pitch. The addition of "in the batter's box" was placed there to help further define what may be considered an errant pitch, not to limit the effect of the rule to pitches only in that location. In rule sets where the "attempt to avoid" requirement has been removed, I will continue to award first base to batter that is hit by a pitch that is not a strike.

What rule set were you under at the time?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by md longhorn

what rule set were you under at the time?

asa

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

asa

ASA has no verbiage whatsoever regarding whether the batter is in or out of the batter's box, and never has. That ruling was correct back then for your game, and would still be now.

Pony, however, does.

Incidentally, ASA has not removed the requirement for the batter to try to avoid getting hit.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

ASA has no verbiage whatsoever regarding whether the batter is in or out of the batter's box, and never has. That ruling was correct back then for your game, and would still be now.

Pony, however, does.

Incidentally, ASA has not removed the requirement for the batter to try to avoid getting hit.

I get all of that. My point is that adding the verbiage "entirely within the batter's box" has created an unintended consequence and over thinking of the rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Andy

I get all of that. My point is that adding the verbiage "entirely within the batter's box" has created an unintended consequence and over thinking of the rule.

There is a big difference between IF in the batters box and ONLY IF in the batters box.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

There is a big difference between IF in the batters box and ONLY IF in the batters box.

There may be a big difference, if that was relevant at all...

The rule, in Pony, states: touches any part of the batter’s person or clothing while she is in the batter’s box

It is not exactly ambiguous.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

I get all of that. My point is that adding the verbiage "entirely within the batter's box" has created an unintended consequence and over thinking of the rule.

I guess I'm completely missing your point. Who, exactly, added the words you quote above?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What rule set were you under at the time?

Are you changing the OP?