Batter hit by batted ball

[jjskitours]

Under NF for puposes of calling a batter out when hit by a batted ball, is the batter considered out of the box when one foot is on the ground completely outside the box. I know that is the ruling if he hits the ball with one foot out and on the ground. Under MLB rules I believe if one foot is still in the box when ball hits B-R in fair territory, the call would be foul ball and not an out. Please confirm or cite rule references if I'm not correct. Thanks

[catsbackr]

From 2012 NFHS Rules Book:

Rule 7, Section 3, Article 2...A batter shall not..Hit the ball fair or fould while either foot or knee is touching the ground completely outside the lines of the batter's box or touching home plate. PENALTY: ...the ball becomes dead immediately and the batter is out.

For future reference, it helps you if you look these up yourself. You'll remember them better. Just a suggestion.

[BretMan]

Sure, a batter is out if he hits the ball with a foot on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. But I don't think that's really the question being asked...

The OP is about a batter being hit by his own batted ball- an entirely different situation. Of course, if he's hit by his own batted ball while still inside the batter's box (and assuming that the ball wasn't intentionally contacted) it's a foul ball. And that has long raised a point of contention: After hitting the ball, at what point exactly is the batter considered to be "out of the box" with respect to his own batted ball hitting him?

Over the years I'd heard various interpretations for this. For instance, if one foot is in the box and one foot is out- as when the batter is taking his first initial step from the box- give the batter the benefit of the doubt and call this a foul ball. Or, that after hitting the ball a batter is not considered to be "out of the box" until both feet have exited the box. Just to muddy the waters, I had heard variations depending on if the ball hit the batter on a portion of the body that was either inside or outside of the batter's box.

It wasn't until last year that the Official Baseball Rules (OBR) finally decided to define this. In 2010 they added a definition of "a batter's legal position in the batter's box" with respect to being hit by his own batted ball. The wording about the batter's "legal position" was added to rule 6.05(g). A reference to rule 6.03 was also added there- 6.03 being the rule that defines the batter's "legal position" as "both feet within the batter's box".

While it was kind of nice for them to take a stab at clarifying this point (after only a hundred years or so of confusion!), to me, this clarification missed the mark. The "legal batting position" referred to in 6.05(g) describes the position the batter must take prior to hitting the ball (ie: both feet entirely in the box, with no part of the foot extending out beyond the lines). What doesn't jibe for me is that a batter may legally hit the ball with a portion of the foot outside the lines of the box, so long as some portion of the foot is still touching the lines. Doing so is perfectly legal. But, if he does that, and his batted ball strikes him, by a strict reading of the 2010 rule change and clarification, he is not in a "legal batting position"!

So the rule change created this odd bit of circular reasoning: A batter could hit the ball in what is considered a perfectly legal position (part of a foot outside the lines, part of it still touching them), but if the ball subsequently hits him before he moves a muscle, he is now instantly in an illegal batting position by the definition presented by rule 6.03.

I'm not sure how a batter can be in both a legal and an illegal position from the instant he hits the ball to the next instant if the ball hits him!

For FED baseball, I've never been able to find a precise definition of what exactly constitutes being "out of the box" with regards to a batter being hit by his own batted ball. Is it one foot outside the box? Two? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps at some point in time this has been defined in one of their annual interpretations they issue, but never made it into their Case Book. If there is a printed interpretation that defines this, I would love to see it.

[mstaylor]

I go with one out on the ground and he is out.

[spiritump_b]

Under NF for puposes of calling a batter out when hit by a batted ball, is the batter considered out of the box when one foot is on the ground completely outside the box. I know that is the ruling if he hits the ball with one foot out and on the ground. Under MLB rules I believe if one foot is still in the box when ball hits B-R in fair territory, the call would be foul ball and not an out. Please confirm or cite rule references if I'm not correct. Thanks

as long as the batter has one foot in the box when the ball hits him--it is a faul ball

[jjskitours]

The one foot in the box is a foul ball is what I believe to be the MLB rule. However, if I follow the wording in NF Case Book 8.4.1 Situation B (B), namely "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box" , it would lead me to the conclusion that if ONE foot is entirely outside then the batter is out.

Catsbackr - believe me I look up everything before I even think about posting a situation / question. You obviously didn't read my question as I assure you the rule re the batter being out of the box when hitting the ball is well documented in the rule books for NF and MLB. Not even close to being an issue.

[jjskitours]

Not sure why the face shows up in my previous post. It is supposed to be a (B).

[Richvee]

For FED baseball, I've never been able to find a precise definition of what exactly constitutes being "out of the box" with regards to a batter being hit by his own batted ball. Is it one foot outside the box? Two? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps at some point in time this has been defined in one of their annual interpretations they issue, but never made it into their Case Book. If there is a printed interpretation that defines this, I would love to see it.

2011 FED casebook 8.4.1 Sit. B

B1 squares to bunt and hits the pitch. The batted ball bounces off the plate and hits B1's (a) leg or , (B) bat a 2nd time while B1 is holding the bat in the batter's box (no foot is entirely outside the batter's box)

Ruling- In (a) it is a foul ball. In (B) the ball is foul unless in the umpire's judgment, the ball was contacted intentionally, in which case the ball would be dead and B1 declared out.

That seems to infer that if one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box, he's considered out of the box.

[Richvee]

haha..Should have refreshed before I found the casebook and typed my reply

Seems we need a space to type ( b )

[BretMan]

I go with one out on the ground and he is out.

As long as the batter has one foot in the box when the ball hits him--it is a foul ball

Thank you, gentlemen, for illustrating exactly what I posted above about the confusion on this play and the interpretation of what constitutes being "out of the box".

The one foot in the box is a foul ball is what I believe to be the MLB rule.

Not according to the OBR 2010 rule change or the two rules I posted above. Prior to that, I do agree that yours was the common interpretation. In short, "give the batter the benefit of the doubt". But that interpretation wasn't supported by any specific rule, which is why I think they finally tried to better define it in 2010.

[catsbackr]

The one foot in the box is a foul ball is what I believe to be the MLB rule. However, if I follow the wording in NF Case Book 8.4.1 Situation B ( B), namely "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box" , it would lead me to the conclusion that if ONE foot is entirely outside then the batter is out.

Catsbackr - believe me I look up everything before I even think about posting a situation / question. You obviously didn't read my question as I assure you the rule re the batter being out of the box when hitting the ball is well documented in the rule books for NF and MLB. Not even close to being an issue.

jj,

You asked a question and requested a rule cite.

I think I gave you what you asked for.

If you already looked it up, why did you ask the question?

Just saying...

[UmpTTS43]

One foot on the ground completely out of the box = batter no longer in box regardless of where his other foot is.

[jjskitours]

Catsbackr - your NF rule 7-3-2 has little if anything to do with the question I raised. I would at least hope you can understand that hitting the ball while one foot is out of the box is a totally different situation than being hit by a batted ball with a foot outside of the box. If you don't see the difference,

I can say no more.

[catsbackr]

Catsbackr - your NF rule 7-3-2 has little if anything to do with the question I raised. I would at least hope you can understand that hitting the ball while one foot is out of the box is a totally different situation than being hit by a batted ball with a foot outside of the box. If you don't see the difference,

I can say no more.

Then you can say no more. They are the same thing, there is no difference, runner struck by a batted ball. And if you've already looked it up and found my rule cite has nothing to do with your question, WHY DON'T YOU CITE THE RULE THAT APPLIES AND ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION?

TTS nailed it

One foot on the ground completely out of the box = batter no longer in box regardless of where his other foot is.

[BretMan]

If everybody looked everything up before posting on this forum, then nobody would ever post anything on this forum...

I still think it's a stretch to take a rule for one situation (the batter's foot placement the instant his bat contacts the ball) and just assume that it automatically applies to a completely different situation (a batter being hit by his own batted ball).

The rules give a very precise definition of where the batter's feet must be prior to the pitch. They give a very precise definition of where his feet must be when his bat contacts the pitch. But they do not give a precise definition of where his feet must be to avoid an interference call if the batted ball hits him after the ball has left the bat. Are those not three separate and distinct scenarios?

I guess that you can infer a definition from a totally unrelated rule if that suits you. And I can live with "one foot out equals out of the box". But there's nothing to "look up" because FED does not expressly cover that exact situation. OBR attempted to last year with their rule change. But the OBR rule, as it reads now, does not say that "one foot out equals out of the box".

[sdix00]

.

[sdix00]

Sure, a batter is out if he hits the ball with a foot on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. But I don't think that's really the question being asked...

The OP is about a batter being hit by his own batted ball- an entirely different situation. OF course, if he's hit by his own batted ball while still inside the batter's box (and assuming that the ball wasn't intentionally contacted) it's a foul ball. And that has long raised a point OF contention: After hitting the ball, at what point exactly is the batter considered to be "out OF the box" with respect to his own batted ball hitting him?

Over the years I'd heard various interpretations for this. For instance, if one foot is in the box and one foot is out- as when the batter is taking his first initial step from the box- give the batter the benefit OF the doubt and call this a foul ball. Or, that after hitting the ball a batter is not considered to be "out OF the box" until both feet have exited the box. Just to muddy the waters, I had heard variations depending on if the ball hit the batter on a portion OF the body that was either inside or outside OF the batter's box.

It wasn't until last year that the Official Baseball Rules (OBR) finally decided to define this. In 2010 they added a definition OF "a batter's legal position in the batter's box" with respect to being hit by his own batted ball. The wording about the batter's "legal position" was added to rule 6.05(g). A reference to rule 6.03 was also added there- 6.03 being the rule that defines the batter's "legal position" as "both feet within the batter's box".

While it was kind OF nice for them to take a stab at clarifying this point (after only a hundred years or so OF confusion!), to me, this clarification missed the mark. The "legal batting position" referred to in 6.05(g) describes the position the batter must take prior to hitting the ball (ie: both feet entirely in the box, with no part OF the foot extending out beyond the lines). What doesn't jibe for me is that a batter may legally hit the ball with a portion OF the foot outside the lines OF the box, so long as some portion OF the foot is still touching the lines. Doing so is perfectly legal. But, if he does that, and his batted ball strikes him, by a strict reading OF the 2010 rule change and clarification, he is not in a "legal batting position"!

So the rule change created this odd bit OF circular reasoning: A batter could hit the ball in what is considered a perfectly legal position (part OF a foot outside the lines, part OF it still touching them), but if the ball subsequently hits him before he moves a muscle, he is now instantly in an illegal batting position by the definition presented by rule 6.03.

I'm not sure how a batter can be in both a legal and an illegal position from the instant he hits the ball to the next instant if the ball hits him!

For NFHS'>FED baseball, I've never been able to find a precise definition OF what exactly constitutes being "out OF the box" with regards to a batter being hit by his own batted ball. Is it one foot outside the box? Two? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps at some point in time this has been defined in one OF their annual interpretations they issue, but never made it into their Case Book. If there is a printed interpretation that defines this, I would love to see it.

If everybody looked everything up before posting on this forum, then nobody would ever post anything on this forum...

I still think it's a stretch to take a rule for one situation (the batter's foot placement the instant his bat contacts the ball) and just assume that it automatically applies to a completely different situation (a batter being hit by his own batted ball).

The rules give a very precise definition OF where the batter's feet must be prior to the pitch. They give a very precise definition OF where his feet must be when his bat contacts the pitch. But they do not give a precise definition OF where his feet must be to avoid an interference call if the batted ball hits him after the ball has left the bat. Are those not three separate and distinct scenarios?

I guess that you can infer a definition from a totally unrelated rule if that suits you. And I can live with "one foot out equals out OF the box". But there's nothing to "look up" because NFHS'>FED does not expressly cover that exact situation. OBR attempted to last year with their rule change. But the OBR rule, as it reads now, does not say that "one foot out equals out OF the box".

@BretMan - Very nicely done.

You have clearly separated the three scenarios and applied the available rules logically and identified the holes in both rule sets.

I appreciate your work here.

[johnnyg08]

On 12/27/2011 at 7:42 PM, BretMan said:

For FED baseball, I've never been able to find a precise definition of what exactly constitutes being "out of the box" with regards to a batter being hit by his own batted ball. Is it one foot outside the box? Two? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps at some point in time this has been defined in one of their annual interpretations they issue, but never made it into their Case Book. If there is a printed interpretation that defines this, I would love to see it.

Revisiting after nearly 12 years. Do we have an interp or cite? There was a question on this year's NFHS test about this.