Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.
I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!
While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.
And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?
IMO, this is a weak.
|
Allow me to throw in my perspective on this issue. A few years ago, there was a rash of batters finding ways on "avoiding" the pitch and still being hit. They did this by turning their backs to the ball as if to avoid the inside pitch, then leaning in. Coaches didn't like this, so we (the umpires) were put onto high alert, which resulted in a lot of "right here!" The reaction to this was the idea of being "frozen" to make the distinction between moving to avoid being hit, and moving to be hit. Thus leading to the inconsistent application. While I didn't see the two plays in this year's DI championship tournament, one resulted in an awarded base, the other resulted in no awarded base. The latter of the two (which I believe was the award) was highly contested by the DC.
Personally, I favor the proposed language. It removes all argument from the DC. I had one this year (DI game) in which the batter began her swing (stride and hips, keeping her hands "back" like a good hitter), the pitch was up and in and hit her in the chest. DC (who's name appears in the rule book of an amateur association we discuss frequently in this forum) said she initiated contact with the ball. The pitch was at least a foot inside the batter's box. New language keeps him quite.