Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry
BUT . . . FED rules allow for an Intentional Walk without requiring pitches to be made. Ostensibly, for the very reason you cited for NOT calling it a strike.(To prevent a batter from swinging and forcing the pitcher to make additional throws; could cause unnecessary injuries, slow the game down, etc. etc. etc.) Using that logic, a swing at a pitch obviously outside and unable to be hit in rules that require pitches to be thrown . . . would conclude that such a pitch should be called a "Strike" not a "Ball", otherwise the rules of the game would prohibit a batter from swinging at an obviously unhittable ball.
What do you think of my reasoning?
Jerry
|
Good point, Jerry.
Furthermore, Peter posted:
The hope here is to make the pitcher throw two extra pitches and perhaps the ball will get away from the catcher allowing the winning run to score.
It appears the batter
was judged by the umpire (since he tells us his judgment) to have been making a legitimate effort within the rules of the game to attempt to benefit his team. The umpire just didn't like or agree
the means in which the batter was attempting it. It was not stated that it was judged that he was attempting to make a travesty of the game.
Who is to say:
- the batter may not have been right, and the defense would have thrown the ball away?
- the pitcher may not have put a pitch too close, allowing the batter to hit it and catch an unsuspecting defense offguard?
- the batter may not have swung at 2 pitches, and then the defense would elect to risk the possibility of pitching the 3rd strike to this batter?
I think that the umpire's decision, although perhaps explained through some highly technical interpetating of the rules, still took away what was judged to be the batter's legitimate effort to attempt to aid his team legally.
Just my opinion,
Freix