Another OBR contradiction? Bouncing HBP

[DDonnelly19]

Had this question on a test for the local association:

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?

a.) Dead ball, batter awarded 1B
b.) Dead ball, pitch ruled a ball
c.) Live ball, pitch ruled a strike
d.) Re-do the play

I chose the obvious answer, "b". The trainer, however, felt that the language in 2.00 BALL would infer that a bounced pitch touching a batter would always result in a one-base award.

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.

6.08(b) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when: he is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball; If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched. APPROVED RULING: When the batter is touched by a pitched ball which does not entitle him to first base, the ball is dead and no runner may advance.

I'm fairly confident on the correct ruling, but in cases like these how is one to determine what the rulesmakers actually intended -- that ALL bounced pitches touching the batter will be a HBP (according to 2.00 BALL), or that the batter is required to avoid the pitch regardless (according to 6.08(b))?

Thanx,
Dennis Donnelly

[Edited by DDonnelly19 on Mar 21st, 2001 at 08:31 AM]

[Buster Light]

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: 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. If the batter swings at such a pitch after two strikes, the ball cannot be caught, for the purposes of Rule 6.05(c) and 6.09(b). If the batter hits such a pitch, the ensuing action shall be the same as if he hit the ball in flight.

Seems kind of surprising to me.... What the heck was he doing in the strike zone and not attempting to swing? Sounds like he was trying to get hit and therefore I would have ruled as you did. Option B. Goes to show how much we know ;-) Guess you just had to be there!

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Had this question on a test for the local association:

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?

a.) Dead ball, batter awarded 1B
b.) Dead ball, pitch ruled a ball
c.) Live ball, pitch ruled a strike
d.) Re-do the play

Answer - a.

Why! A pitched ball that travels in flight is vastly different than a pitched ball that hits the ground first.

IMO, the rulemakers did not want a batter awarded first when he made no attempt at a thrown ball in Flight
as opposed to a ball thrown in the dirt.

When the ball hits the dirt and hits the batter he is awarded first base.

Pete Booth

[Buster Light]

In this situation, 1- the ball was in the srike zone and 2- he was not attempting to swing. That sounds more like he was trying to get hit. Otherwise it makes sense.


[Edited by Buster Light on Mar 20th, 2001 at 02:53 PM]

[PAblue87]

This was a Question on a test. Therefore, we cannot assume what the batter was trying to do. Also, when the ball hits the dirt the batter may react in such a way that he gets hit, but was not trying to intentionally. Unfortunately it is a tough situation to read, safest bet is to stick to the rule book.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
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?

a.) Dead ball, batter awarded 1B
b.) Dead ball, pitch ruled a ball
c.) Live ball, pitch ruled a strike
d.) Re-do the play

[...]

I'm fairly confident on the correct ruling, but in cases like these how is one to determine what the rulesmakers actually intended -- that ALL bounced pitches touching the batter will be a HBP (according to 2.00 BALL), or that the batter is required to avoid the pitch regardless (according to 6.08(b))?

Dennis,

I have to agree with Pete Booth on this one. The most significant difference here is that the pitched ball was not "in flight". If it had been "in flight" and touched the batter in the strike zone, as clearly was the location of the contact, it would have been ruled a dead ball strike. [see OBR 2.00 Definition of A STRIKE]

In this case, the wording of OBR 6.08(b)Comment is incomplete. It should read that the batter is entitled to 1st base when hit by any pitched ball, unless (1) the ball was "in flight" and in the strike zone or (2) the batter made no attempt to avoid being hit by a pitched ball which was "in flight". The absence of the words "in flight" (sic) from the actual rule comment is an oversight, IMO, given the original intent of the rule.

OTOH, the wording of OBR 2.00 Definition of A BALL is quite precise. A pitched ball which is NOT "in flight" can only become a strike if the batter offers at it. Otherwise it will ALWAYS be a ball and by virtue of that definition the batter "shall be awarded first base" every time he is hit by such a pitched ball without offering at it.

The original 1887 rule wording provided for a batter to become a base runner when "his person or clothing is hit by a ball from the pitcher, unless - in the opinion of the Umpire - he intentionally permits himself to be so hit." Explanatory notes in the Appendix of the 1887 rule book reiterated the umpire's responsibility in determining the intention of the batter. [Source: JEA 6.08(b) Historical Notes] The modern wording of "makes no attempt to avoid" is predicated in this original wording that the batter's clear INTENT is to be hit and so draw the penalty award.

Support for this position comes from the MLB Professional interpretation as reported in JEA:

"Professional Interpretation: There is a fine distinction in determining whether a batter intentionally tried to get hit by a pitched ball or failed to avoid being hit.

In the first instance, no base shall ever be awarded when the umpire adjudges that the batter tried to get hit.

In the second instance, it becomes the umpire's responsibility to determine whether or not the batter could have feasibly avoided the pitch. With the variety of pitches that professional pitchers command today, it is unrealistic to expect batters to protect the plate and not subject themselves to being hit. The umpire incurs tremendous responsibility in determining the batter's intent." {my underlines}

Unfortunately, JEA offers no explanatory play to amplify the import of this interpretation, which I believe is that a batter cannot "feasibly" be expected to avoid a pitch which is no longer "in flight". The umpire in your case would need to be convinced the batter intentionally "tried to get hit" to deprive him of the award of 1st base without liability to be put out. Determining an intention to be hit when the ball is no longer "in flight" should be considered equally as difficult as that for avoiding a batted ball which has been deflected by a fielder.

Absent clear evidence of intent, award the base. Answer (a). I know this result is NOT arrived at by declaring the definition in OBR 2.00 has precedence over the direction in the OBR 6.08(b) Casebook Comment, but I hope I have shown that the wording of the latter is less indicative of the rule maker's true intent than that of the former.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 20th, 2001 at 05:20 PM]

[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. 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."

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?

Dennis

[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,

[PeteBooth]

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. 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.

Let's try and simplify.

When a ball hits the dirt first it can NEVER be a strike unless the batter attempts to hit it.

On a more practical note: Why award the offense (F1) anything when he makes such a bad pitch?

The only time I can think of in which B1 would not be awarded First base on being hit after ball hits dirt, is if he purposely puts his body in the way of the ball and that is very difficult to tell after the ball bounces.

Do not complicate matters out there. F1 blew it by throwing in the dirt, if it hits batter, award first base.

Pete Booth

[DDonnelly19]

Throw out the whole "strike zone" deal. I was reading into the rule too much, and it wasn't even part of the original test question. My bad!

With that in mind, the situation becomes much more simple. I'm aware that tradition and custom say to give the batter the base, but I'm only concerned with what the rule implies. The test is directed towards 16-year old kids who will probably be working 12-year olds, so I doubt JEA or other sources will come into play, but only what appears in OBR. To put it another way, how would a "competent" protest committee rule on such a situation?

Pitch touches the ground before it touches the batter. Umpire judges that not only did the batter fail to avoid the pitch, he even leaned into the pitch. The umpire still awards him 1B -- he feels that the wording in 2.00 BALL means that the batter will always be awarded 1B on a bounced pitch. Defensive coach protests, claiming that the comment in 2.00 BALL was only meant to emphasize that when a pitch that touches the ground before the batter, the batter may be awarded 1B, but that he still needs to meet the requirements outlined in 6.08(b), that the fact that the pitch touches the ground is irrelevant.

The trainer has "A" (batter awarded 1B) as the answer to the test question, where I feel it's "B" (pitch ruled a ball). Who's right?

Thanx,
Dennis

[L.G. Dorsey]

Dennis,

As you have correctly stated, there is nothing that says you have to give 1B to a batter anytime he is hit if you think he didn't attempt to get out of the way(caveat, he's out of the strike zone when hit). At younger ages, they won't be intentionally trying to get hit with any pitched ball, most of the time, they want to get the heck outta there. So keep it simple and give the BR 1B and call a "dead ball". As Jon Bible says, "Don't go looking for boogers!"

Lawrence

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
I doubt JEA or other sources will come into play, but only what appears in OBR. To put it another way, how would a "competent" protest committee rule on such a situation?

[...snip play...]

The trainer has "A" (batter awarded 1B) as the answer to the test question, where I feel it's "B" (pitch ruled a ball). Who's right?

Dennis,

There is plenty of precedent in the rules for where the exact rule wording is diametrically opposed to what is actually done by History and Tradition; infielders who don't have to be inside the 90-foot square on an Infield Fly, bases that can be "missed" even though the next base hasn't been touched in the incorrect order, runners ruled "Safe" at first when they haven't touched the base before the fielder tags it with the ball, etc. The whole argument of your trainer is predicated in his narrow understanding of one word - "shall" - in OBR 2.00 Definition of A BALL. Is he now also going to insist that ONLY fielders who station themselves inside the 90-foot square on any play are eligible infielders for the purpose of the Infield Fly Rule?

The rules, however they are formally worded, MUST be read in the light of the Spirit and Intent in which and with which they were created. To do otherwise would be chaotic. I don't believe that the rule makers intended for any batter always to be awarded 1st base, even if he DELIBERATELY allows himself to be hit with a pitched ball, simply because the pitch ball bounced first. Even common sense and fair play would tell us otherwise. It was always an exercise in judgement of intent, right from the quoted 1887 origin of the rule. What's more, the whole tenor of the rules of baseball is to support common sense, fair play and good sportsmanship. I would counsel any Protest Committee against destroying that underpinning concept for the sake of their contemporary understanding of ONE WORD in the Definition of A Ball!

It is NOT a question of "Who's right" but rather "What's right"! If a Protest Committee is unable to grasp that, and the concept of Spirit and Intent, then they aren't really administering BASEBALL! If your "competent" Protest Committee is NOT using PBUC and JEA Professional Interpretations at least, then they aren't administering OBR baseball either.

Bottom line? In your most recent example, answer (b) should be preferred, since the batter's intent to allow himself to be hit seems clearly established. In your original example, even absent the "as it enters the strike zone" phrase, answer (a) should be preferred, since the batter's intent to allow himself to be hit was not clearly established.

Cheers,

[DDonnelly19]

Well, I think I got the answer I was looking for -- the comment in 2.00 BALL is not intended to award the batter 1B at all times. But with all this quoting of JEA and custom and tradition, the inexperienced umpire is sure to become overwhelmed. The question came from a rules test, not a "custom and tradition" test, with the main purpose of the test being to make the umpires read through the rulebook;. Is it important to recognize the target audience for such discussions and "dumb down" the topics accordingly, or should the rookie umpires be taught about custom and tradition right off the bat?

At the meeting where we handed in the tests, the trainer discussed topics such as the neighborhood play and calling the strike zone of least resistance. Some of my colleagues in attendance, all with over 10 years experience, were surprised to hear the trainer discuss such issues to a group of high school kids in their second and third years. Should the rookies have everything thrown at them at once, or should they be taught the basics for the first three years and let experience teach them custom and tradition?

Thanx,
Dennis

[Ump20]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Well, I think I got the answer I was looking for -- the comment in 2.00 BALL is not intended to award the batter 1B at all times. But with all this quoting of JEA and custom and tradition, the inexperienced umpire is sure to become overwhelmed. The question came from a rules test, not a "custom and tradition" test, with the main purpose of the test being to make the umpires read through the rulebook;. Is it important to recognize the target audience for such discussions and "dumb down" the topics accordingly, or should the rookie umpires be taught about custom and tradition right off the bat?

At the meeting where we handed in the tests, the trainer discussed topics such as the neighborhood play and calling the strike zone of least resistance. Some of my colleagues in attendance, all with over 10 years experience, were surprised to hear the trainer discuss such issues to a group of high school kids in their second and third years. Should the rookies have everything thrown at them at once, or should they be taught the basics for the first three years and let experience teach them custom and tradition?

Thanx,
Dennis

I am sure you will generate a lot of opinions on this issue. I think you should be honored that your trainer thinks your group is in a position to absorb some of the issues that for many come only with experience or attendance at umpire schools or clinics. The neighborhood play is stating that the fielder does not have to be in contact with the base while he has possession of the ball. That does not "sound" like an out but it "looks" like an out. I've been umpiring ten years and I'm not sure what the strike zone of least resistance is but I would assume it has to do with calling the standard acceptable zone for the level of ball you are doing rather than the "book rule". I would also think it includes curve balls that hit in front of the catcher are never strikes etc because they don't LOOK like strikes to most everybody in the ballpark.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Well, I think I got the answer I was looking for -- the comment in 2.00 BALL is not intended to award the batter 1B at all times. But with all this quoting of JEA and custom and tradition, the inexperienced umpire is sure to become overwhelmed. The question came from a rules test, not a "custom and tradition" test, with the main purpose of the test being to make the umpires read through the rulebook;.

I understand, but it is equally important with Rookies that they know that some things just aren't called the way the book says. That infielder/Infield Fly issue is a classic example. Rookies, like all officials, need to understand that it is NOT their reading of the rules that matters but how the rule is applied in that league, and elsewhere. You simply can't get that from reading the book. That said, questions like this one which are ambiguous at best plainly don't belong in an exam for 16 year old Rookies.

Is it important to recognize the target audience for such discussions and "dumb down" the topics accordingly, or should the rookie umpires be taught about custom and tradition right off the bat?

At the meeting where we handed in the tests, the trainer discussed topics such as the neighborhood play and calling the strike zone of least resistance. Some of my colleagues in attendance, all with over 10 years experience, were surprised to hear the trainer discuss such issues to a group of high school kids in their second and third years. Should the rookies have everything thrown at them at once, or should they be taught the basics for the first three years and let experience teach them custom and tradition?

I don't know if "dumb down" is the best way to describe it, but certainly topics ought to be appropriate to the level and experience of the umpires involved. We get into a LOT of stuff on these boards, for example, that is just going to confuse the average newbie on the diamond. By the same token, I don't think you should only teach the basics for the first 3 years either. From 2nd year on you can start introducing more advanced concepts, but give them to them only a couple at a time. Don't overload their brains with detail. Start with the most common calls first.

The one thing that Rookies need from their very 1st year on is the confidence and support to make unusual calls as they see them. If you can't teach them how to call a compound balk/catcher's interference play by knowledge, you can at least show them how to work through a problem and come up with a reasonable approximation based on crime/punishment or offensive/defensive balance. The one thing you DON'T want is for them to embed any of the more popular myths in their game. The most common of these should be dispelled right away.

From my experience the following is a fairly normal process of development for umpires who start as teenagers. Carl might offer a better, or more refined view.

1. Rookie year. Read the rule book cover to cover, learn the basics - key definitions, strike zone, fair/foul, catch/no catch, safe/out, dead balls, appeal plays, standard mechanics, fly ball and base coverage, base awards, basic balks, when and when not to get help. If they get most of that down in year 1 you're way out in front.

2. R+1. Read the rule book cover to cover, revise ALL of the basics, especially appeal plays. Add unusual awards such as catch and carry, dropped ball in DBT, detached equipment, obstruction, interference, balls deflected out of play, advanced balks. Introduce the PBUC Umpire Manual for interpretations and let them work through it with help. Introduce basic game management techniques for 2-man. Introduce Spirit and Intent as the underlying concept for rule interpretation - maybe use advanced balks for examples.

3. R+2. Read the rule book cover to cover, revise ALL of the basics, especially obstruction and interference. Add the modified strike zone, neighbourhood play, so-called phantom tag play, "missed" base call/no call at both 1st and home, 4th out appeal. Introduce the JEA Professional interpretations, J/R and BRD as appropriate. Give them an understanding of the concept that the conduct of the game in accordance with the rules is NOT their only task, and introduce advanced game management techniques. Introduce History and Tradition as guides to Spirit and Intent.

If you have an umpire with 3 years experience at the end of this, you'll have done well. If you end up with an umpire who has 1 years experience 3 times over, find the mental block and work at removing it.

Rookies should ONLY work with an experienced UIC.
R+1 should work with experienced UIC most of the time, and only occasionally with R+2.
R+2 should only work with R+1 and above.
Pick the experienced UIC's for Rookie games not on years officiated but for ability to transfer knowledge.

I don't know if this is what you were asking for. Maybe it is way more than you either wanted or needed. If so, no matter. Bottom line is that if you have the resources you should split your Rookies and R+1's away from your R+2's and senior guys for instruction and discussions. Even if you have to start with Rookie instruction and then send them home half way through so you can concentrate on the more senior guys for the last half of the session. But don't forget to look for the above average guy to earmark for accelerated advancement.

Cheers,