Batter Interference 0r Foul Ball?

[Gr8Dane]

Check out this baseball rules interpretation page. Look at the 5th section down below "After hitting the ball SAFE"
http://baseball-rules.com/batterbox.htm

Now look at the MLB 2019 OBR - see attached screen clip.

THE QUESTION IS: After hitting a fair ball, the batter takes one step completely out of the box - the other foot is still in the box - and the ball hits the player in fair territory. Out? or Foul ball? Is the player protected from interference with one foot out of the box like that?

We are going round and round about this on two different umpire groups on Facebook.

[maven]

You're looking at an old interpretation (signaled by the website's use of the old rule numbers). I see no attached clip.

IIRC, Wendelstedt interprets "If the batter is in legal position in the batter's box" more narrowly, to refer to both feet in the box (think: batted ball bounces up and hits batter before he moves—this is the paradigm, but not the only possibility).

Accordingly, pro umpires would rule the play you describe INT: the ball is dead, the batter is out, and other runners return (even if stealing on the pitch).

[beerguy55]

If his other foot is on the ground outside the box, he is not protected.

If his second foot is still in the air I believe he is.

 

Having said that - this play happens so fast, it is too close to do anything but accept the umpire's judgment to whether or not the batter was still in the box.

[Gr8Dane]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

You're looking at an old interpretation (signaled by the website's use of the old rule numbers). I see no attached clip.

IIRC, Wendelstedt interprets "If the batter is in legal position in the batter's box" more narrowly, to refer to both feet in the box (think: batted ball bounces up and hits batter before he moves—this is the paradigm, but not the only possibility).

Accordingly, pro umpires would rule the play you describe INT: the ball is dead, the batter is out, and other runners return (even if stealing on the pitch).

The attached clip is the screen shot of the current rules. Sorry, poor choice of words. 

[Gr8Dane]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If his other foot is on the ground outside the box, he is not protected.

If his second foot is still in the air I believe he is.

I'm confused by that answer. Does one foot in and one foot out of the box mean he's still in the box and protected from interference if he touches the fair ball?

[beerguy55]

5 minutes ago, Gr8Dane said:

I'm confused by that answer. Does one foot in and one foot out of the box mean he's still in the box and protected from interference if he touches the fair ball?

Back foot in box, front foot out of box on the ground - batter is out of box - not protected  (frankly doesn't matter where his back foot is - any foot touching the ground completely outside box makes the batter out of the box)  

Back foot in box, front foot in the air - batter is still in the box - protected (I think)

 

 

[Gr8Dane]

6 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Back foot in box, front foot out of box on the ground - batter is out of box - not protected  (frankly doesn't matter where his back foot is - any foot touching the ground completely outside box makes the batter out of the box)  

Back foot in box, front foot in the air - batter is still in the box - protected (I think)

 

 

Right, that's another good question. It's a batter's box, not a batter's plate. You don't have to be in contact with it in order to be "in" it. So, it seems like you can be "out" of it with your foot in the air across the line. But, I would think you'd have to be all the way out either way.

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, Gr8Dane said:

Right, that's another good question. It's a batter's box, not a batter's plate. You don't have to be in contact with it in order to be "in" it. So, it seems like you can be "out" of it with your foot in the air across the line.

You're not out of the box until your foot completely touches the ground outside of it.

ie. you stand on the front line of the box with your back foot, and your front foot in the air - you hit the ball it is legal as you are still in the box...as long as that one foot touching the ground is touching some part of the box.

3d space only matters in determining the status of a ball - where the ball is in space in relation to fair/foul/out-of-play...for people, status is dictated by what they are touching or last touched (mostly)

[Gr8Dane]

9 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

You're not out of the box until your foot completely touches the ground outside of it.

ie. you stand on the front line of the box with your back foot, and your front foot in the air - you hit the ball it is legal as you are still in the box...as long as that one foot touching the ground is touching some part of the box.

3d space only matters in determining the status of a ball - where the ball is in space in relation to fair/foul/out-of-play...for people, status is dictated by what they are touching or last touched (mostly)

Thank you!

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, Gr8Dane said:

THE QUESTION IS: After hitting a fair ball, the batter takes one step completely out of the box - the other foot is still in the box - and the ball hits the player in fair territory.

While others are helping you with the actual question, I'll be the semantics police.

If the ball hits the batter - its fair/foul determination has yet to be made. Therefore, you can't say "after hitting a fair ball" because that would imply that when the ball was over fair territory, it was either (a) touched by a fielder or a runner, or (b) bounded past 1B or 3B. In your situation, it's done neither, so it's neither fair nor foul.

[Gr8Dane]

5 minutes ago, yawetag said:

While others are helping you with the actual question, I'll be the semantics police.

If the ball hits the batter - its fair/foul determination has yet to be made. Therefore, you can't say "after hitting a fair ball" because that would imply that when the ball was over fair territory, it was either (a) touched by a fielder or a runner, or (b) bounded past 1B or 3B. In your situation, it's done neither, so it's neither fair nor foul.

Well the 2019 OBR refers to it as a fair ball in 5.09(a)(7) and references 5.04(b)(5)

[beerguy55]

12 minutes ago, yawetag said:

While others are helping you with the actual question, I'll be the semantics police.

If the ball hits the batter - its fair/foul determination has yet to be made. Therefore, you can't say "after hitting a fair ball" because that would imply that when the ball was over fair territory, it was either (a) touched by a fielder or a runner, or (b) bounded past 1B or 3B. In your situation, it's done neither, so it's neither fair nor foul.

 

yeah...the rule should really say "when his batted ball, while over fair territory, touches him..."

However, the moment the ball touches him in fair territory it's determination is made - it's fair or foul, depending on where his feet are.

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

it's fair or foul, depending on where his feet are.

 

You might want to rethink that.

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, maven said:

You're looking at an old interpretation (signaled by the website's use of the old rule numbers). I see no attached clip.

IIRC, Wendelstedt interprets "If the batter is in legal position in the batter's box" more narrowly, to refer to both feet in the box (think: batted ball bounces up and hits batter before he moves—this is the paradigm, but not the only possibility).

Accordingly, pro umpires would rule the play you describe INT: the ball is dead, the batter is out, and other runners return (even if stealing on the pitch).

 

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Back foot in box, front foot out of box on the ground - batter is out of box - not protected  (frankly doesn't matter where his back foot is - any foot touching the ground completely outside box makes the batter out of the box)  

Back foot in box, front foot in the air - batter is still in the box - protected (I think)

 

 

When the rule was added pro umpires then did call interference on runners who didn't have both feet on the ground in the box. There were a few instances that I believe were discussed on UE. There also was one case in MLB that was not called INT when the batter had one foot in the air. I attributed that case to umpire judgement or possibly the ump didn't abide by the rule addition and called it old school. 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

 

You might want to rethink that.

I don't need to - it's fair if he's out of the box (and he's out, ball is dead, etc, etc) and foul if he's still in the box.

[Rich Ives]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't need to - it's fair if he's out of the box (and he's out, ball is dead, etc, etc) and foul if he's still in the box.

You also said   "it's fair or foul, depending on where his feet are."

No, it isn't. If he's out of the box it's fair or foul depending on where the ball was at the time it was touched. In this case the position of his feet have nothing to do with it. Period. 

[beerguy55]

28 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

You also said   "it's fair or foul, depending on where his feet are."

No, it isn't. If he's out of the box it's fair or foul depending on where the ball was at the time it was touched. In this case the position of his feet have nothing to do with it. Period. 

Jesus Christ - the context of this entire thread has been about whether or not the batter is in the box...and that is dictated by WHERE HIS FEET ARE.

In context, from the OP, and reiterated in the statement I made, to which you're objecting, we've already established that the ball was in fair territory when it hit the batter.  It is  not assumed, nor does it need to be determined...it is stated and known.

Knowing that, the ball is fair or foul based on whether or not he's in the box, which is determined by...*everybody sing*...where his feet are.

Stop reading everything in a bubble - the thread from beginning to end tells a story...follow along.

[Gr8Dane]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

 

When the rule was added pro umpires then did call interference on runners who didn't have both feet on the ground in the box. There were a few instances that I believe were discussed on UE. There also was one case in MLB that was not called INT when the batter had one foot in the air. I attributed that case to umpire judgement or possibly the ump didn't abide by the rule addition and called it old school. 

Someone else on here said the foot location is either where is currently is on the ground or the last place it touched on the ground if it's in the air. That merely lifting the foot into the air across the batter's box line does not constitute being out of the box. It's not until the foot is on the ground outside the box that they are considered out of the box.

[Gr8Dane]

54 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Jesus Christ - the context of this entire thread has been about whether or not the batter is in the box...and that is dictated by WHERE HIS FEET ARE.

In context, from the OP, and reiterated in the statement I made, to which you're objecting, we've already established that the ball was in fair territory when it hit the batter.  It is  not assumed, nor does it need to be determined...it is stated and known.

Knowing that, the ball is fair or foul based on whether or not he's in the box, which is determined by...*everybody sing*...where his feet are.

Stop reading everything in a bubble - the thread from beginning to end tells a story...follow along.

I think what Rich Ives is pointing out is that the premise here is the ball hits the batter over fair territory, so it's not fair or foul depending on his feet, it's INT-dead ball-out ...or foul ball...depending on where his feet are. But, yeah I think we're all talking about the same thing in different ways.

[Jimurray]

53 minutes ago, Gr8Dane said:

Someone else on here said the foot location is either where is currently is on the ground or the last place it touched on the ground if it's in the air. That merely lifting the foot into the air across the batter's box line does not constitute being out of the box. It's not until the foot is on the ground outside the box that they are considered out of the box.

Before MLB added the clarification of a legal foot position and the batter or his bat being hit by his fair batted ball in 2010 the rule on a "double hit" was literally an out. But we all (except for a few literal readers that had no other training) called it as you say. But I took notice of the rule rewording in 2010 and also took note of several MLB calls that abided by the strict verbiage of the rules. Batters leaving the box were called out. One time an old school umpire seemed to abide by the older interp we all used prior to the rule clarification in 2010. Most of us probably still call it the old way in OBR and of course FED and NCAA which don't use "legal position". BTW can anyone cite what interp we used before 2010 when the OBR rule was a literal out? But I believe MLB wants both feet touching the ground within the box to protect a batter from being called for interference. 

[Gr8Dane]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Before MLB added the clarification of a legal foot position and the batter or his bat being hit by his fair batted ball in 2010 the rule on a "double hit" was literally an out. But we all (except for a few literal readers that had no other training) called it as you say. But I took notice of the rule rewording in 2010 and also took note of several MLB calls that abided by the strict verbiage of the rules. Batters leaving the box were called out. One time an old school umpire seemed to abide by the older interp we all used prior to the rule clarification in 2010. Most of us probably still call it the old way in OBR and of course FED and NCAA which don't use "legal position". BTW can anyone cite what interp we used before 2010 when the OBR rule was a literal out? But I believe MLB wants both feet touching the ground within the box to protect a batter from being called for interference. 

Yes, it seems pretty unequivocal. 5.09(a)(7) says only if you're legally in the box and 5.04(b)(5) says in the box means both feet. Pretty cut and dry. However, I think if you're in the box and one foot is in the air ... I think you're still clean.

 

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, Gr8Dane said:

Yes, it seems pretty unequivocal. 5.09(a)(7) says only if you're legally in the box and 5.04(b)(5) says in the box means both feet. Pretty cut and dry.

 

It is. @Rich Ives would argue an airborne foot not outside the box is still in the box. MLB hasn't called it that way in the instances I know of. BUT, don't argue baseball rules on facebook, even umpire sites. I've done it and will probably succumb again but it's a losing proposition.

[Gr8Dane]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

It is. @Rich Ives would argue an airborne foot not outside the box is still in the box. MLB hasn't called it that way in the instances I know of. BUT, don't argue baseball rules on facebook, even umpire sites. I've done it and will probably succumb again but it's a losing proposition.

Scroll up and see a great explanation of foot on or off the ground. I shall quote...
 

"You're not out of the box until your foot completely touches the ground outside of it.

ie. you stand on the front line of the box with your back foot, and your front foot in the air - you hit the ball it is legal as you are still in the box...as long as that one foot touching the ground is touching some part of the box.

3d space only matters in determining the status of a ball - where the ball is in space in relation to fair/foul/out-of-play...for people, status is dictated by what they are touching or last touched (mostly)"

[Jimurray]

54 minutes ago, Gr8Dane said:

Scroll up and see a great explanation of foot on or off the ground. I shall quote...
 

"You're not out of the box until your foot completely touches the ground outside of it.

ie. you stand on the front line of the box with your back foot, and your front foot in the air - you hit the ball it is legal as you are still in the box...as long as that one foot touching the ground is touching some part of the box.

3d space only matters in determining the status of a ball - where the ball is in space in relation to fair/foul/out-of-play...for people, status is dictated by what they are touching or last touched (mostly)"

I just know MLB called it like I just explained. A legal position is with both feet within the box. You can argue whether touching or airborne within the confines of the box is required by either foot for the purposes of that rule. I think both have to be touching. A legal position to hit the ball is not the same as that batted ball hitting the batter or his bat. Did you just discover the rule wording change this year? 

[Gr8Dane]

19 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I just know MLB called it like I just explained. A legal position is with both feet within the box. You can argue whether touching or airborne within the confines of the box is required by either foot for the purposes of that rule. I think both have to be touching. A legal position to hit the ball is not the same as that batted ball hitting the batter or his bat. Did you just discover the rule wording change this year? 

Well, I was an ump 30 years ago and just jumped back in for Little League this year, so yeah I just discovered this rule change this year. And there is no way in hell MLB would ever say you are out of the batter's box because you lifted your foot. That is ridiculous.

[Jimurray]

7 hours ago, Gr8Dane said:

Well, I was an ump 30 years ago and just jumped back in for Little League this year, so yeah I just discovered this rule change this year. And there is no way in hell MLB would ever say you are out of the batter's box because you lifted your foot. That is ridiculous.

I think that’s what one old school MLB ump thought when he didn’t call INT.  But most others are calling it like the rule says and there used to be video of it. I don’t think you can search MLB.com for that anymore. Time for someone to cite the Wendelstedt interp of the rule wording change.