|
Beyond the problems I have with the new hit batter rule, I may have a bigger problem with the way the rule will be written. I don't have my 2013 rule book yet- they're supposed to be on the way. The only "official" explanations I have of the new rule are those offered by the NFHS rule change memos.
From their memo last summer:
A batter will be awarded first base if “a pitched ball is entirely within the batter’s box and it strikes the batter or her clothing. No attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch is required; however, the batter may not obviously try to get hit by the pitch.
That last sentence would lead me to believe that we will still need to use some judgment on this call. The ball just being inside the batter's box alone should not automatically equal an awarded base.
And from the list of rule changes on their website:
8-1-2 PENALTY: Identified when a hit batter is awarded first base and that she may not deliberately allow the ball to touch her in the batter's box
Again, there is still a judgment to be made. Did the batter "deliberately allow the ball to touch her"?
Now we're back to square one. Isn't this the same judgment that we have always had to make? A batter that "freezes" and gets hit, because the ball is truly unavoidable, apparently did not "deliberately or obviously" allow the ball to hit her. She gets first base- same as in the past.
A 35 mph curveball that doesn't break, or the pitch slowly dribbling on the ground toward the batter, are easily avoidable pitches. If one of those hits the batter in the batter's box, because she chose to stand there like a statue, has she not "deliberately" allowed herself to be hit? At least from the rationale given in the memos, this batter should not be awarded first base.
I can hear it now. A batter lets an avoidable pitch hit her in the batter's box, we keep her at the plate because we judged that she "deliberately" allowed herself to be hit...and the coach has a fit, crying, "But it hit her in the box!".
|