Is that what you think the intent of the rule is? If F1 throws a cock-shot, but B1 sticks his hand in front of the plate and knocks down the ball before it enters the strikezone, it should be a ball? Somehow I have a hard time envisioning the rules makers thinking that is the correct call.

Bob:

No offense but that's a silly, silly argument, especially coming from someone who is generally considered by internet denizens to be an expert. It's known as <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, and everyone knows it is fallacious.

Everyone also knows about the unwritten "rule" that says one team cannot egregiously flaunt the intent of a statute. "Last time by," for example, does not protect a runner who misses second by 30 feet. The definition of balls and stikes does not protect a batter who sticks his hand in front of the strike zone to prevent a pitch from becoming a strike. (Good common sense might, I suppose.)

If such an obviously unsportsmanlike action had happened in my game, I am certain I would simply have sat the young man down. (And brought in a pinch hitter with a 3-1 count.)

Remember, the generating play (and my play) features a batter who gets hit in the customary way in a customary spot. His action <i>looks</i> legal to the average participant/fan. You and I are both experienced enough in the ways of the young to realize that the batter in my game thought he would go to first because he was hit by the pitch. That it was ball four, I'm sure, never entered his mind.

Bob, you can do better.

Please define "customary way" and "customary spot."

As I recall, the batter intentionally got hit (no doubt about it) -- while not unheard of, I wouldn't call it "customary".

And, he was hit while the ball hadn't yet reached the plate -- I don't think that's customary either.

The rule states soemthing to the effect that "A Strike is a pitch that enters the strike zone." I think it's clear that the intent of the rule is to include the phrase "or is prevented from entering the zone by hitting the batter."

Carl:

I don't understand your logic on this play. You've said that you were sure the pitch was going to be a strike. Had the batter taken the pitch you would have rung him up. Instead he chose to basically cheat and take the pitch away and now you're going to give him a base on balls award for committing an illegal act. I have to believe that had you called it the other way and sat his butt down there would have been no complaint from the offensive manager.


Tim.

Carl,

Maybe nobody said anything because it was Carl Childress who made the call. If I had been the defensive coach, I would have been all over you like white on rice.

It isn't a TWP to see batters crowd the plate and then stick their forearms into a pitch in the strike zone. It happens more frequently than you might think.

I would have sold it that the pitch was in the zone and the batter intentionally let the ball hit him in order to get a free pass. I'm sure that if you could tell it was intentional, that the coaches probably could too, as well as some of the more intelligent fans.

Just my worthless opinion.

Well, if umpires around the country are going to base their judgment on Bob Jenkins' reading of the subtext, you're better write a book. Officiating.com will publish it. (I know the editor.)

Your argument doesn't hold water. But that doesn't give you the license to demand definitions.

Batters turn into pitches. They get hit on the shoulder. Don't make yourself look worse by pretending you can't see the difference between that play (my play) and someone who calmly, obviously, deliberately, in plain view prevents a pitch in front of the plate from crossing that plate.

An analogy: R1 leaves early on a fly ball and misses second on his way to third. He then discovers the fly ball was caught. He missed second on his way back and is awarded second when the ball is overthrown. The defense appeals: No dice. "Last time by" cured his error.

Same play, but R1 to get back to first simply cuts across the mound, is safe at first, and is awarded third on the overthrow. The defense appeals: R1 is out. He obviously flaunted the rules of baserunning.

(Fitzpatrick for PBUC, Section 4, BRD. See also J/R, page 71.)

A batter who sticks his hand in front of the plate obviously flaunts the rules of batting.

C'mon.

I hadn't realized it before. You're a romantic, someone who wants the rules to say that all's fair, the god of baseball is in his heaven, and all's right with the world.

Lah, me: Deliver me from umpires who want to put their imprint on the game because of what they <i>think</i> the rules (ought to) mean.

Tim:

Here's the difference. I want to call by the rule. You want to call by what you think it should be. You're a romantic, like Bob.

There's no language in any book that gives an umpire the right to overturn a rule. Fill in the blank:

If it's not a strike, it's a ______________.
If it's the fourth ball, the batter________________.

Regardless, it's a third world play. I'm been umpiring since 1954; yesterday was the first time it ever happened in one of my games.

If it happened in MLB or NCAA, somebody would get smashed in the ribs.

These things take care of themselves.

BTW: If I had called strike two (remember, it was a 3-1 count) - when it wasn't? - what then?

You're willing to call it a strike when it isn't, but you're not willing for me to call it a ball when it is.

Now, which one of us is twisting the rules to suit our philosophy of how the game should be played?

Let's ignore all the previous plays. Let's also ignore any "intent" on the part of the batter.

A batter gets hit before the ball reaches the plate.

The pitch is:

1) Always a ball.
2) Always a strike.
3) Called based on the umpire's judgment of whether the ball would have entered the strike zone.
4) A "do-over".


(I think those are the only options -- feel free to add others).

My vote is for 3.

Well, since I follow the rules (2-4-2), my vote is for #1.

Except for cases of obvious unsportsmanlike conduct, such as the batter who sticks his hand out to deflect or catch a pitch. when I like #4 and a restriction.

Remember, Bob: It's your job to enforce the rules, not what you think they should be. Fairness is not always possible within the rules. You <i>know</i> that.

Wouldn't this be along the same lines of making the expected call?

Tim.

Back to the article that sparked this debate...

In the article, the author describes the batter as sticking out his elbow to intentionally allow the ball to hit him. He did this before the pitch had a chance to enter the strike zone.

I see that as a distinctly different act than simply turning away from an inside pitch heading right at you and taking one for the team. Sticking out an elbow would, to me, be analogous to sticking out a hand. Without the chosen body part being purposely extended, the ball doesn't touch the batter.

We're talking about two distinct actions that most seasoned umpires on this board would have no trouble distinguishing.

The fine line being skirted here is the difference between a batter allowing himself to be hit on a pitch where you would normally give him the benefit of the doubt and a batter purposely reaching toward the pitch to intentionally contact it.

The author of the article appears to be a seasoned umpire, based on the brief biography there. This seasoned umpire judged that the batter's actions were willful, intentional and, in his own words, "an unsportsmanlike act".

In summary: We have a 3-2 count. The next pitch heads right for the strike zone. We have a batter intentionally contacting the ball before it has a chance to reach the plate. And we have an umpire judging the batter's actions to be unsportsmanlike conduct.

That is the EXACT play offered in the article.

What's your call.

Well I can buy the PBUC position - we cannot allow the batter to go to first in this scenario - deliberately getting hit with an overt action. Yet by rule it is a ball. We don't seem to be left with many options except an ughh do-over with a new batter.

Just something that occurred to me, and I don't have the rulebook with me.

A pitch (or flubbed pitch) that doesn't make it across the foul lines is .... what?

And technically, wouldn't a pitch stopped by the batter in front of the plate be the same?

Technically.

So, since Carl is holding to the technical definition in calling this a ball, even if intentional, shouldn't he instead be ruling this NOT a pitch?

I liked your reasoning until I thought about runners on base. Then that pitch is a balk. I can't see rewarding the offense with a balk in this case. But I loved the effort!

Well then TECHNICALLY . . . (Don't take this too seriously, but doesn't it ilustrate an absurd technicality?)

Most batted balls are hit before the pitch gets to the plate. With runners, does that make them balks instead? I mean, if the batter flies out he didn't reach 1st safely so you enforce the balk - right?