Quote:
Originally posted by DDonnelly19
2-1 Pitch bounces and hits batter as it enters the strike zone. Batter did not swing, but he did not attempt to avoid the pitch. What is the correct ruling?
a.) Dead ball, batter awarded 1B
b.) Dead ball, pitch ruled a ball
c.) Live ball, pitch ruled a strike
d.) Re-do the play
[...]
I'm fairly confident on the correct ruling, but in cases like these how is one to determine what the rulesmakers actually intended -- that ALL bounced pitches touching the batter will be a HBP (according to 2.00 BALL), or that the batter is required to avoid the pitch regardless (according to 6.08(b))?
|
Dennis,
I have to agree with Pete Booth on this one. The most significant difference here is that the pitched ball was not "in flight". If it had been "in flight" and touched the batter in the strike zone, as clearly was the location of the contact, it would have been ruled a dead ball strike. [see OBR 2.00 Definition of A STRIKE]
In this case, the wording of OBR 6.08(b)Comment is incomplete. It should read that the batter is entitled to 1st base when hit by any pitched ball,
unless (1) the ball was "in flight" and in the strike zone or (2) the batter made no attempt to avoid being hit by a pitched ball which was "in flight". The absence of the words "in flight" (sic) from the actual rule comment is an oversight, IMO, given the original intent of the rule.
OTOH, the wording of OBR 2.00 Definition of A BALL is quite precise. A pitched ball which is NOT "in flight" can only become a strike if the batter offers at it. Otherwise it will ALWAYS be a ball and by virtue of that definition the batter "
shall be awarded first base" every time he is hit by such a pitched ball without offering at it.
The original 1887 rule wording provided for a batter to become a base runner when "
his person or clothing is hit by a ball from the pitcher, unless - in the opinion of the Umpire - he intentionally permits himself to be so hit." Explanatory notes in the Appendix of the 1887 rule book reiterated the umpire's responsibility in determining the intention of the batter. [
Source: JEA 6.08(b) Historical Notes] The modern wording of "makes no attempt to avoid" is predicated in this original wording that the batter's clear INTENT is to be hit and so draw the penalty award.
Support for this position comes from the MLB Professional interpretation as reported in JEA:
"
Professional Interpretation: There is a fine distinction in determining whether a batter intentionally tried to get hit by a pitched ball or failed to avoid being hit.
In the first instance, no base shall ever be awarded when the umpire adjudges that the batter tried to get hit.
In the second instance, it becomes the umpire's responsibility to determine whether or not the batter could have feasibly avoided the pitch. With the variety of pitches that professional pitchers command today, it is unrealistic to expect batters to protect the plate and not subject themselves to being hit. The umpire incurs tremendous responsibility in determining the batter's intent." {my underlines}
Unfortunately, JEA offers no explanatory play to amplify the import of this interpretation, which I believe is that a batter cannot "feasibly" be expected to avoid a pitch which is no longer "in flight". The umpire in your case would need to be convinced the batter intentionally "tried to get hit" to deprive him of the award of 1st base without liability to be put out. Determining an intention to be hit when the ball is no longer "in flight" should be considered equally as difficult as that for avoiding a batted ball which has been deflected by a fielder.
Absent clear evidence of intent, award the base. Answer (a). I know this result is NOT arrived at by declaring the definition in OBR 2.00 has precedence over the direction in the OBR 6.08(b) Casebook Comment, but I hope I have shown that the wording of the latter is less indicative of the rule maker's true intent than that of the former.
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 20th, 2001 at 05:20 PM]