|
This article is causing a lot of discussion- and confusion- over on the NFHS baseball discussion boards. The thread here is getting just as sidetracked as the one over there.
Much of the confusion seems to be that people commenting have either: A) not read the article, or; B) have read it and completely missed the author's point.
For those of you who have not seen the actual article, here are a few highlights.
- The title of the article is "Making Final Decisions on Points not Covered by the Rules". And that title very well sums up the gist of the article.
It is NOT an article describing the "hit batter" rule or the many implications of that rule that can crop up during a game.
- In the article, the author is quite clear that the batter, on a 3-2 count, allowed himself to be hit with the pitch BEFORE THE BALL ENTERED THE STRIKE ZONE. That is, the batter allowed the ball to touch him BEFORE THE BALL REACHED THE PLATE.
So, there's no "assumption" on this point to be made. The author spells it out several times.
- It is the author's contention that, by rule, this isn't a strike because the batter wasn't touched by a pitch "in the strike zone".
The ball had the "potential" to become a strike had it not been touched before reaching the plate.
If called a ball, the batter gets a free pass to first base due to his "unsportsmanlike" conduct, when the pitch may very well have been a strike if not intentionally touched.
- It is the author's contention that there in no FED rule to cover this scenario. (If you can find one, please post the rule number here).
- It is the author's contention that, since there is no FED rule to cover this play, we must rely on rule 10-2-3-g which gives the UIC the final decision on points not covered by the rules.
The "do-over, warn, then eject" solution was the option that the author chose as a remedy to a "point not covered by the rules".
I personally don't care for his proposed solution. But, if he is truely making a call based on rule 10-2-3-g, then there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. It is solely a case of what this umpire judges to be an equitable solution.
[Edited by BretMan on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 11:59 AM]
|