[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Well, I read the question on the test again and it makes no mention of the ball passing through the strike zone, but only that it touches the ground.

Uh, how about I quote (again) the wording of the original question from YOUR original scenario, eh?

"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? " {my underline}

Now admittedly, "enters the strike zone" is not exactly the same as "through the zone", but I'm betting the two are close enough for a cigar! (grin) After all, a pitch can hardly pass "through the zone" without entering it first, and a pitch that "enters the strike zone" pretty well MUST pass through it, wouldn't you say?

Also, after looking over 2.00 BALL again the wording seems somewhat vague:

2.00 BALL -- If the pitch touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone it is a "ball." If such a pitch touches the batter, he shall be awarded first base.

What is meant by "such a pitch" -- a ball that bounces through the zone or just a pitch that bounces? In the former case, the definition would tend to be interpreted that only pitches that bounce through the zone and strike a batter would not require the batter to attempt to avoid the pitch -- seems unlikely that the rulesmakers intended THAT scenario to occur. Why would we be required to determine whether a bouncing pitch passes through the strike zone, which would determine if the batter would be required to avoid being hit by the pitch? Once that pitch hits the ground, there is no more "strike zone."

You are missing the point here, Dennis. Everything after "...is not struck at by the batter" in the definition is a casebook comment. In other words, it is an interpretation forming part of the rule. The "such a pitch" refers to any ball that has bounced, whether it goes through the strike zone or not. Obviously, if it is a HBP it cannot also be a ball! Hence the distinction from the definition itself. We know the interpretive comment is talking about a ball that bounces because it is referred to both in the sentence before and the two sentences after this one. If the "such a pitch" referred only to a bouncing ball that also passed through the strike zone, then the subsequent sentence would be superfluous.

However, if the definition is clarifying that a pitch that simply bounces and touches a batter would not prevent a batter from being awarded a base, then the requirements on the batter outlined in 6.08(b) should still apply. Granted, we'd give the benefit of the doubt to the batter in such situations, but the question is merely wanting the by-the-book ruling. If the batter does not need to avoid the pitch on a 40-footer rolling towards him, why should he on a 30-mph lollipop going right for his backside?

Goes to INTENT, Dennis. Read again the citation from JEA in my post above, about trying to get hit vs failure to avoid being hit, and remember that the rules were made for PROS who seldom have either 40-foot rollers or 30-mph lollipops! Open an ice cold brew and mull it over for a while. It will come to you, I'm sure. (grin)

Cheers,