HBP Out of the Batters Box (PONY)

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Of course, I was referring to Andy's "unintended consequence".

[Andy]

I'll try again....

The intent of the rule change is take away the requirement that the batter has to attempt to avoid the errant pitch in order to be awarded first base if hit by a pitch. Before this was implemented and as it is currently written in ASA, it does not matter where the pitch is if it is not in the strike zone or is not swung at by the batter. If the pitch hits the batter and the batter attempted to avoid the pitch, s/he is awarded first base.

Adding the verbiage "entirely within the batter's box" or similar to the text of the rule ie., "the batter does not have to attempt to avoid any pitch that is entirely within the batter's box" leads some to believe that the batter still must make an attempt to avoid a pitch that hits a batter who is out of the batter's box. The common example is the lefty slapper that has run out of the front of the box. (NCAA excepted as they specifically address this situation)

My opinion is that the rationale behind adding this language was the simplistic view that the batter should be in the batter's box and the pitch should not. It was meant as an example, not a definition of the only time the rule applies.

I believe the rule change should be written something like this:

If a batter is hit by a pitched ball that is not swung at nor in the strike zone, the ball is dead and the batter is awarded first base.

If I'm the umpire in the OP, I'm calling a dead ball and awarding the batter first base. Just as I would have done prior to the rule change.

[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?