Officials' Quarterly

[fwump]

As it so happens....

A relevant incident that I witnessed at my son's JV game this past Saturday. Our F5 was at bat, I don't remember the exact count except there were less than 2 strikes. Pitcher delivered a pitch inside off the plate which struck the batter on the thigh. He made no discernable effort to get out of the way. PU hesitated a sec, looked at the batter and called him out! (No he did'nt kill it).
"He made no effort...he's out!" What?

HS umpires (TASO) ...unbelievable. They must have been regular readers of Official's Q.

Mike

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by fwump
As it so happens....

A relevant incident that I witnessed at my son's JV game this past Saturday. Our F5 was at bat, I don't remember the exact count except there were less than 2 strikes. Pitcher delivered a pitch inside off the plate which struck the batter on the thigh. He made no discernable effort to get out of the way. PU hesitated a sec, looked at the batter and called him out! (No he did'nt kill it).
"He made no effort...he's out!" What?

HS umpires (TASO) ...unbelievable. They must have been regular readers of Official's Q.

Mike

Not making an excuse for the guy he should know the rules. Obviously he's not out because he made no effort to get out of the way. JV and Freshman are where the new guys start out. Hopefully he learned from his mistake. Incidently did the Head Coach question this? If not then he does not know the rules or perhaps you were mistaken and there were two strikes on the batter. At any rate cut the umpires at this level some slack I'm sure many of them are Rookies and are learning on the job as we all did at some time.

[officialtony]

Oh, I'll add fuel to the fire. The rules in Fed are very clear on this scenario.

7-3-4 says " A batter shall not: permit a pitched ball to touch him. Penalty: The batter remains at bat ( pitch is a ball or strike ) unless pitch was a third strike. "

So . . . . on a 3-2 count, by 7-3-4 the batter takes ball four on the elbow ( or wherever ) which puts him on 1st base. The rule doesn't make any case for bases loaded, batter is cheating so call it a strike, that's not fair to the defense, etc. It doesn't make any case for the umpire to use his discresion and call it a strike even though it isn't ( remember the strike zone is " over the plate " and this ball probaly hit the batter before it got there ). I think it would take more courage to follow the rule and place him on 1st than it would to call him out because you don't like what he did. I am playing devils advocate here. I hope this never happens to me. In any event, I am not having a do over. That is not in the rule for this situation.

A sidenote. FED could easily rectify this by posting in the penalty " . . . .unless pitch was a third strike or fourth ball which causes the batter to be out. " Wouldn't that make it easier for all?


Just read Alan Roper's thoughts on this scenario. Apparently I am in agreement with his phiilosophy ( for the most part ). Bottom line. Put him on 1st base.

[Edited by officialtony on Mar 1st, 2006 at 09:35 AM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by officialtony
It doesn't make any case for the umpire to use his discresion and call it a strike even though it isn't ( remember the strike zone is " over the plate " and this ball probably hit the batter before it got there ). I think it would take more courage to follow the rule and place him on 1st than it would to call him out because you don't like what he did.

Why would you assume the ball probably hit the batter before it entered the strike zone? I have had quite a few batters intentionally let the ball hit them by sticking their elbow or knee into the strike zone. On these occasions, I always call "Time, that's a strike!" If it is strike three, too bad, they're out. The same when they make no attempt to get out of the way of a pitch when I have judged them to have had the opportunity to do so. I call "Time, Ball! Stay right there!"

I think it takes more courage to make these calls, because the offensive coach usually gets really pissed off. Usually it's the same coach that says "he didn't make an attempt to get out of the way, Blue!," when the other team's batter gets drilled with an inside fastball that was impossible to dodge.

[officialtony]

SanDiegoSteve,
Unless the batter is back in the box, leaning in doesn't have to be in the stike zone. In any case, in this scenario, the umpire did not call a strike on the batter. So let's deal with the scenario as it exists. And please now address the rest of the content of the post, which you seemed to have neglected, regarding the rules. Deal with the rules. Not one small part of an observation I made. I have offered support for my decision to put the batter/runner on first base with exact rules basis. You may offer whatever rule you can find to show me diferent and I will look at it. However, the rule is VERY clear here. You may not like it, but it supports the only correct action to take in this scenario. Anything else is contrived and would be hard to exlain to both coaches. However, citing rule 7-3-4, gives me the basis for my correct, albeit very unfriendly, distasteful, and unpopular decision to award 1st base.

[Edited by officialtony on Mar 1st, 2006 at 06:40 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

officialtony,

I didn't forget about any part of the post. I said how can you assume the pitch wasn't in the zone when the batter intentionally let the ball hit him. You say it "probably" wasn't in the zone. Where do you come up with this? It is far more likely that if the pitch looks to the PU like it is a strike, then the pitch was in the strike zone. Different scenarios have been given. Which one were you talking about, yours, or the original?

If a batter intentionally lets the ball strike him, he's not getting first base unless he already had a 3-ball count, and the pitch was not a strike.

I don't think we disagree here, I was expanding on your point is all.

[officialtony]

SDS,
I was talking abut the Quarterly article ( I didn't make that very clear although that was what the thread was about ). I did throw in some observations on my part that I probably should have been more specific about being my observations. As far as agreeing with me on the ruling, I didn't get that from any of your posts. You seemed intent on ringing him up rather than following the rule. But . . . you did not cover the scenario of the pitch being a ball until after my last post. So . . if you feel that the batter/runner gets 1st base for being hit by ball four, then we are in agreement. If you are one of those that is going to call strike three because you are ticked that he took the pitch intentionally, then we do not agree. Please understand that I am not awarding 1st base on the hit-by-pitch. I am awarding 1st base for the ball four that hit him. If it were ball 1, 2, or 3, he stays in the batters box. I apologize to you for any confusion on this with you - or any of the other posters for that matter.

[SanDiegoSteve]

tony,

I'm not one who is going to call him out because I'm ticked at him. I'm not that kind of umpire. I said that if the pitch was in the zone, I would call it a strike. If the pitch was to be clearly out of the strike zone, I would call the pitch a ball.

[jxt127]

The rules seem pretty clear that if the ball hits the batter while the ball is not in the strike zone then it is a ball. Whether the pitch would have been a strike (had it not hit the batter) or not seems irrelevant. I don't have PBUM so maybe they shed some more light on the subject.

As with much at the pro level I am sure this kind of stuff is self-correcting!

What do you do about though in youth ball? It's pretty rare a young player will deliberately get hit. But those mid-teens plus a win or die coach and we can easily see it happening. A slower F1, batter gets well forward in the batter's box and leans way in. So he's hit by the pitch. By rule it's a ball. If you take it further into TWP territory the batter could stick his hand out in front of the plate and touch 4 belt high middle of the plate pitches and get a BB. Legal sure but not at all the intent of the game or the rules.



[Edited by jxt127 on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 12:02 PM]

[BretMan]

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]

[BigUmp56]

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 feasiblely 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.


Tim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Professional Interpretation:

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

Then what do we do if the batter (for whatever misguided reason) intentionally gets hit by what clearly would have been ball 4?

I agree that "intentionally getting hit before the ball reaches the plate" is not covered. It's clear to me, however, that we can't call it a ball or that gives the batter an opportunity to "force" a walk / ball call.

So, I invoke 9.01c / 10-2-3g and call it a strike -- if it was close enouogh for the batter to try this move, it's close enough to be a strike.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Perhaps nobody is supposed to be awarded bases when they intentionally allow the ball to hit them, but Tim Flannery of the Padres made a career out of sticking body parts in the way of pitches, and was always awarded first base.

[BretMan]

My own solution to this problem would be closer to yours, Bob.

I don't really like the solution proposed in "Official's Quarterly", but can appreciate the thought process that allowed the author to arrive at the point of applying 10-2-3-g.

Since this "god rule" allows us some creativity, if faced with this same play, anything that looks like it has any chance to come through the strike zone, I'm ruling a strike.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Then what do we do if the batter (for whatever misguided reason) intentionally gets hit by what clearly would have been ball 4?

I agree that "intentionally getting hit before the ball reaches the plate" is not covered. It's clear to me, however, that we can't call it a ball or that gives the batter an opportunity to "force" a walk / ball call.

So, I invoke 9.01c / 10-2-3g and call it a strike -- if it was close enouogh for the batter to try this move, it's close enough to be a strike.

I don't understand why you think this is a point not covered.

In the generating play:

1. The pitch is not a strike.
2. It is the fourth ball.
ERGO:
The batter is awarded first.

What is difficult about this?

Everybody gets all excited because the batter prevented what you ASSUME would have been a strike.

I had thought this was a third-world play — until today:

Zapata, Texas, plays Rio Grande City, Texas, in the La Joya, Texas, invitational tournament at 2:30.

In the third inning, with a three-one count, the Rio (Rattlers) pitcher breaks off a curve ball that is headed for a strike. The Zapata (Hawks) batter is in the front of the right-handed batter's box. As the pitch nears the strike zone, he "twists away" from the pitch, managing to get hit in the process.

I am asbsolutely certain the batter intended to get hit.
I am absolutely certain the pitch would have been a strike.
I am absolutely certain that it was not a strike when it hit the batter.
I am absolutely certain I awarded him first base.

The result: Nobody said nothing.

Rio won, 3-1.

I expected the Rio pitcher might get buzzed when he came to bat, but he didn't.

Good sportsmanship reigned.

The Zapata coaches were not happy, though. I made them wear uniform jerseys. Here in South Texas they all want to wear warm-up jackets.

I told a coach in the second game he looked better in a uniform top: "When you're wearing that smock, you look like you belong on Brokeback Mountain."

He said: "I heard you were one of the stunt doubles." Which I though was a pretty good comeback for a coach.

His assistant coach, Jesus Landeros, had worked for me as an umpire back in the 1980s. He's still a summer-ball official.

In the first inning, there was an eye-lash play at first. Foot was late, "good academy mechanics".... Before I could sing "He's out," I heard Jesse yell: "He's out" but he was signaling safe, just like every first-base coach does on really, really close plays.

Lah, me.