HBP Out of the Batters Box (PONY)
 

For my fellow PONY umpires, a question...

Rule 9 section 2 f and effect:
THE BATTER BECOMES A BATTER/BASERUNNER:
(FP ONLY) When a pitched ball, not struck at or notcalled a strike, touches any
part of the batter’s person or clothing while she is in the batter’s box. It does
not matter if the ball strikes the ground before hitting her. The batter’s hands
are not part of the bat.
EFFECT: Sec. 2f: The ball is dead and the batter isentitled to one base without
liability to be put out unless she made no effort to avoid being hit. In this case, the plate umpire calls either a ball or a strike


Play: Lefty slap-hitter, stepping way forward out the front of the box, sees the pitch coming in to her, pulls back the swing and gets hit with pitch out in front of the box.
We're calling dead ball, ball on the batter?

Part of the message is omitted:
"The play that is not addressed is what to c all when the batter gets hit by the pitch while out of the batter’s box. We cannot award the batter first base because she was not in the box. "

Yup.

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.

What rule set were you under at the time?

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.

Are you changing the OP? ;) ;) :p :D :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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

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

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?