The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
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.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
...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?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Switching Batters Boxes in Pony baseball Pete in AZ Baseball 111 Sat Apr 08, 2006 01:04pm
Pony tail Forksref Football 12 Sun Sep 04, 2005 01:50am
PONY Nationals TexBlue Softball 0 Mon Jul 26, 2004 06:04pm
Pony vs. ASA greymule Softball 2 Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:01am
PONY versus ASA CecilOne Softball 14 Sat May 24, 2003 12:05pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1