Little League - hit by ball in batter's box

[Guest Chris]

What is the call:

Batter is in front of batter's box and tops the ball, the ball hits fair territory and spins back and hits batter while he is still in front of batter's box.

[Chris]

5 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

Let me get this straight. You are looking for a rule - not an interpretation - that says a ball that hits the batter while in fair territory inside the batters box is an out rather than a foul ball. Is that right?

NFHS, Rule 2.2.1.f indicates that a foul ball is a batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box. 

NCAA Rule 7.7.e says a foul ball is a legally batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box, or hits the dirt or home plate and then hits the batter or the bat, which is in the hand or hands of the batter, while in the batter's box

OBR  5.09.a.7 If the batter is in a legal position in the batter’s box, see Rule 5.04(b)(5)(Rule 6.03), and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, a batted ball that strikes the batter or his bat shall be ruled a foul ball; 

While LL may not have specifically addressed this in its rules book.... try this:  LL Baseball Umpire Clinic Manual . If that's what the organization has in its training materials, I would suggest that it should be sufficient to cite.

I was looking for a LL rule to cite, which we all now seem to agree does not exist.

Seemingly, every other organization has a specific rule to cover this scenario, as you have outlined several above.

Very early on in this thread I accepted citing the 2017 LL RIM.

After accepting the citation, I clearly stated that the further discussion was only intellectual curiosity; not to debate being able to call foul and cite a reference.

I stated the relevant LL rule and pondered how the rule could be interpreted by the Instructor as meaning unless the batter is still in the batter's box - the rule does not leave room for that interpretation. 

 

[Chris]

25 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Is there a thread off the rails emogi  

but @Chris  are you and your UIC aware that OBR and LL had the same rule wording until a few years ago and prior to that every OBR and LL interp was to rule foul if a batted ball hit the batter in the box. 

 

Sure, unfortunately LL sends out a rule book every year - they never mention if you don't like something here, or feel another year's book may be better, or just ignore this book and go off what you want or some other organizations rules.

in fact, the rule book states clearly:

“OFFICIAL RULES - The rules contained in this book.”

Excerpt From: Digital, Libre. “2017 Little League Baseball: Official Regulations, Playing Rules, and Policies.” Libre Digital, 2017. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

There are Approved Rulings outside of the book that apply scenarios to the rules to clarify ambiguous rules, however, I have not found another A.R. or instructor's comment that completely changed the rule as this does. The instructor's comment does not expound on 6.05(f), it creates an application of a rule that Has no basis in the LL rule book. 

Please understand, this discussion is continuing for intellectual curiosity, not debating a citation to apply the call of foul ball, I have stated that 3 times now.

[Chris]

4 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

Okay, pretend I don't have "moderator" next to my name, and that I'm just a regular cranky dude.  Because that's what I generally am, and that's how I'm going to respond here.

There are a number of people that have told you how to rule on this.  Because you want a black-and-white rule specifically written - perhaps even addressing you by name in the book - and because your UIC ruled the way he did (spoiler alert - he was incorrect), you don't want to accept that interpretations in all codes have taken care of the issue.  Just because some coaches-box-monkey-turned-lawyer is giving you crap doesn't make them right, and the collective opinion of the umpiring world (including this site) wrong. 

And then you take this 'shots-fired' response to noumpere, along with another dozen or so posts about the subject - for "intellectual curiosity."  Thing is, noumpere's a pretty sharp guy, for one, he's posted almost 320 times more often than you (I did the math), for two, and his rep score is through the roof, which means a lot of people have liked or agreed with a lot of what he's said, for three.

So maybe do some reading, along with some writing, when you're here.  Not saying to not write - not saying that at all - but you came here with a question, and got your answer.  Stop digging.

are you kidding?

I have done a lot of reading, I have cited the actual LL rules, I have questioned the instructor's comment in the RIM that creates a rule without basis. 

I have yet to ask for a rule that references me by name, I simply asked for A SINGLE LL RULE. I haven't seen a post yet that disagrees with there not being a rule; not even a rule that was ambiguous and some other document provided a clarification. 

"Intellectual curiosity" - you make me laugh by dismissing someone that wants to further a discussion on applying a rule that is not a rule.