HBP Out of the Batters Box (PONY)

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

Isn't one variation of "not in the box", the normal and legal arms position in space above the ground between the batter box and the plate?

[EsqUmp]

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.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.

Okay. By phrasing it in the form of a question, it seemed to open the conversation up to incorrect interpretations for PONY, rather than just create general discussion. That's what my concern was. And I think the proof is in the pudding.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I don't do PONY, so I have no idea what that rule intends. But, I do think that some people are mixing apples and oranges on this topic.

It seems to me the "entirely within the batter's box" is intended to eliminate free bases for batters toeing the line and hanging over the river and the plate, when the rationale has always been described that pitchers shouldn't be throwing the ball in the batter's box, and batters shouldn't be required to be distracted from their purpose, to hit good pitches.

Others seem to be extrapolating this to include slappers out the front of the box. And, admittedly, the language doesn't really differentiate, except that it doesn't address the batter, it addresses the ball. But, if slaphitting IS an acceptable and recognized way of hitting, AND, knowing slappers are often out front of the box (even if the foot IS still in the air); so, I ask, is it then ok that pitchers are missing the zone and throwing the ball in an area that WOULD result in being in the batter's box, why do we not want to use the same decision process of "is the ball where the pitcher should be throwing it (plate and rivers)", or "is the ball where (or headed to where) the batter is supposed to be"??

If NO RULE in these rulesets (not ASA, obviously) requires batters to show an attempt to avoid ANY pitch, no matter where it is, then where is this requirement coming from. Note that the rules don't address attempting to avoid in any other location, they only address NO NEED to attempt to avoid if the BALL is completely in the batter's box. I see no rule (aside from NCAA) that addresses where the batter is, just the ball.

And that, again, leads back to the mindset of where the pitcher is supposed to be throwing the ball, NOT any legislation on where the batter is.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Isn't one variation of "not in the box", the normal and legal arms position in space above the ground between the batter box and the plate?

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'll try again....

The intent of the rule change

Just as I would have done prior to the rule change.

What rule change.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What rule change.

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.

[RKBUmp]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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

[Andy]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

...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.

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.

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.