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?

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. ;)

What rule change.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

...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.

Prior to the rule change, what would you have ruled in PONY in the OP?

Andy, and this is my problem with the new rule. Should a pitcher not be able to miss off the inside corner by 2" for fear of hitting the batter who is crowding the plate just begging to get hit? Since the rule has gone into effect, I have seen more and more batters with their toes right on the line with knees, elbows and hands well into the area between the plate and the box. There is no way they can hit an inside pitch standing there, they are doing it on purpose to try and keep the pitcher off the inside, and if the pitcher does throw inside to get hit.

The girl I called back to the plate in first round of state tournament I would have called back to the plate even if she hadnt rolled her shoulder into the pitch. She was crowding the plate so bad even though the pitch was high and slightly inside it was no where near being entirely in the batters box. Barring some clarification to the contrary I believe the rule is exactly as worded, if the ball is not entirely within the batters box the batter must still make an attempt to avoid being hit.

hbp.

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?

Given your explanation of what you think SHOULD be, your problem with the rule doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you don't think it's fair for a batter to crowd the plate and take away that inside pitch, and then benefit from it when she's hit. The new rule is MORE in line with that thinking ... not less!

My comment was in response to this in which it sounds like Andy would award 1st base in exactly the situation I have described.

I personally believe the rule does require the batter to avoid being hit if the ball is not entirely within the batters box. That is why I stated until some other clarification comes down that is different than the way the rule is worded it only absolves the batter of an attempt to avoid if the ball is entirely in the box.

This exactly.

Seems to me there was much less of any type of debate before people started making mandate decisions FOR the umpire instead of letting the umpire make the decision.

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.

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.

Two lessons here:

First, watch the umpire and see where he is looking on the foul pop-up. I'm usually quite critical of TV/movie umpires because they are absolutely terrible with mechanics. This "umpire" watches Costner the entire trip and lets the catcher take him to the play.

Second, it is quite obvious, box or not, no one is safe. The batter was in the box,


But where was the bull?