Officials' Quarterly

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

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?

The pitch ends when the batter hits the ball (and I think we can assume that means hits with the bat).

[SanDiegoSteve]

While I realize that Jaska/Roder and a buck can get you a steaming hot mug of jack squat, here is what J/R has to say about intentionally getting hit by a pitch (emphasis added):

"(1) The batter is hit-by-pitch (HBP).
A batter is awarded first base when a pitch touches his person unless;
(a) it is a strike (swinging or in the strike zone), or
(b) he intentionally tried to be touched by the pitch.

Regardless, the ball is dead. If the batter is awarded first base, sequential runners are also awarded their advance base; other runners (and any runners if there is no award) return to their time-of-pitch base.

e.g. A batter is crouched near the plate and rolls his shoulder into a curve ball, attempting to be HBP. The ball is dead, but he is not awarded first. If the pitch was (or would have been) a strike, it is called as such."

It seems as though they are leaving room for a pitch which had not yet entered the zone, but "would have been" a strike had it not been interfered with. That's what I see here, but your milage may vary.

[BretMan]

Personally, I like that interpretation best.

But then again, I might be predjudiced by this NFHS softball rule change for 2006:

"7-2-1h New: A strike will be called on the batter when, in the umpire’s judgment, she prevents a pitched ball from entering the strike zone."

Maybe they'll slip that one into their baseball rules someday- after changing "she" to "he", of course!

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

The pitch ends when the batter hits the ball (and I think we can assume that means hits with the bat).

And after I told you to not take it seriously . . . .

[SAump]

I don't care what type of bender the pitcher tosses up there. He can be throwing corners for all I care. He needs to avoid hitting the BATTER with them. I cannot rule on what its curvature coulda/shouda/woulda have been. If the batter is standing in the batter's box and gets plunked in the side/back by a curve ball that may have been a strike had he not been there; I would award the batter first base because he was there. If the batter is standing in the batter's box and he gets plunked in the upper arm by a curve ball that looks like it would have been a strike had he not been there; I would award the batter first base because he was there.

The batter is allowed to stand inside a box outside the strike zone and in front of the plate. The batter's front shoulder/arm is usually in most cases always above the strike zone. The batter's body is usually in most cases always out of the strike zone. The ball is dead upon impact. I can only make the call on the LOCATION of the pitch at the time of IMPACT. I can not look into the future to determine any other possible flightpaths. The ball did not cross into the strike zone because it HIT the BATTER who was standing where he should have been. There can be no determination made that it would have later crossed the strike zone. Did it hit the batter in the strike zone or were the batter's actions adjudged to be intentional?

But I know one casewriter who must be licking his chops about the Batter's UNINTENTIONALITY.

[SAump]

"The pitch ends when the batter hits the ball (and I think we can assume that means hits with the bat)."

The pitch ends when the ball hits the batter too.

[BretMan]

SAump,

I don't have any problem with what you've posted about a hit batter who was where he is supposed to be, doing what he's supposed to do.

And therein lies the rub. The article in question described a hit batter being where he wasn't supposed to be, doing something he isn't supposed to do.

Do you see the distinction?

If a batter in your game leans into a pitch, or sticks his elbow out into a pitch he could have avoided, in your judgement do you award him first?

Award the base on a 3-2 count and you have allowed the offense to benefit from his unsportsmanlike conduct.

Take this odd situation to an extreme. 3-2 count and the pitch is right down the pipe. The batter sticks his hand out and deflects the pitch in front of the plate.

What do you do then?

How is that problem different than the one offered in the magazine article?

[Edited by BretMan on Mar 4th, 2006 at 07:36 AM]

[C'monBlue]

What do you do when the kid leaning halfway over the plate gets hit with a fastball in the shoulder? Technically, his feet could still be in the batter's box; and after a couple of innings the box is gone anyway. It hardly seems fair to award a base for a pitch that was thrown over the plate. Does the pitcher have a right to that corner without being penalized by a HBP?

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by C'monBlue
What do you do when the kid leaning halfway over the plate gets hit with a fastball in the shoulder? Technically, his feet could still be in the batter's box; and after a couple of innings the box is gone anyway. It hardly seems fair to award a base for a pitch that was thrown over the plate. Does the pitcher have a right to that corner without being penalized by a HBP?

It the pitch was a strike when the batter was hit, call a strike. If the pitch was a ball when the batter was hit, call a ball.

All the others out there arguing for what the pitch coulda, woulda, shoulda been...Like my grandfather said - That dog won't hunt.

It isn't a strike until it meets the criteria to be a strike. Therefore it is a ball. In the sitch in the article, it's ball 4. BR is awarded a BOB and a shiner for being stupid. That's why you don't play freshmen on the varsity squad.

Go see the subscription side of this site. I have an article that lays this all out according to the rules. That dog hunts.

[SAump]

This happened to me in a game. A pitcher throws a slow-curve and plunks the batter in the helmet. The batter could have easily backed away for a ball (HIGH) but he was determined not to show any fear. The batter turned his head and (in fear) ducked into it. He had thought about the pitch, leaned his head forward and allowed it to plunk him. I believe his courageous act was intentional.

I call it a ball and ask the batter to stay there. The 3B coach goes ballistic. I consult with my only other friend out there and he rules that the batter may not have had time to properly react to the situation. He comes up with the cheap "frozen headlights" analogy and overrules my initial decision. That doesn't make me feel any better, but I awarded first base to the batter who later scores.

I can only hope the Coach who went ballistic over a courageous HBP batter doesn't ever see one of his kids get severely injured this way. He could have taught them to SAFELY back away from a pitch aimed at their head. I can only hope the batter will simply back away from a 100 mph rising fastball and allow it to SAFELY pass for a ball. Yes, I do discuss FAIR PLAY, SAFETY and PROPERLY EQUIPPED in my pre-game conference. Its just a GAME and I would hate for some adult to teach a young kid to stand up to any potential DANGER, without first considering the kid's SAFETY.

The DC comes up and states that my call was a judgement call and the OC cannot argue a very good BALL/STRIKE judgement call. I totally agree with his argument and tell him about that headlight analogy. I can immediatly tell how happy he is with my decision. I never even considered a DO-OVER. It didn't make me feel any better when the game ended 5-4. I walked away with a bitter taste that day. It wasn't a very good game from my point of view because I made an impact on the outcome of the game. But I accept my responsibility and do NOT blame my partner for letting me hang out to dry. I simply walk away and try to LEARN from it. There is always another GAME to call.

[BretMan]

Let me see if I've got this right.

You are behind the plate. You judge that a hit batter did not attempt to avoid the pitch, or allowed himself to be hit by intentionally sticking a body part in the ball's path.

You tell him to stay put and call a ball, because the batter contacted the ball outside of the strike zone.

Sounds good so far.

Then, you let your partner (I take it you mean your partner, or base umpire, by "your only friend out there") overrule your judgement call?

To answer your question, "What should I do?", the first thing you should do is stick with your original call. That is your call to make, you made it, based on your judgement, and you should live-or-die with it. It sounded like the right call. No way can your partner "overrule" you on this!

Your next move might be to dump the coach that went "ballistic".

But, again, your scenario is a little bit different than the one presented in the referenced magazine article.

How about this? Tie game, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. 3-2 count on the batter.

The pitch is right down the middle of the plate, belt high. Or, it would have been had the batter not reached out with his hand and deflected the ball just barely in front of the plate. You can change "reaching with the hand" to any other form of intentionally contacting the pitch you like- sticking out an elbow, shoulder or even his head.

What do you do then? Award the base based on ball four? Allow the batter to decide the game based on his unsportsmanlike conduct? Call strike three?

That is the scenario presented in the article. It wasn't a typical "hit batter" play, or a discussion of the "hit batter" rule. It was a discussion of one very specific situation and how the author would rule in that specific situation.

The author of the article called, essentially, "no pitch", warned the batter and his coach and threatened ejection if this happened again. He made this call based on rule 10-2-3-g (it was a FED game).

Now...what would YOU do?

[Edited by BretMan on Mar 4th, 2006 at 06:35 PM]

[btdt]

SA
Straight judgement call.

Your call all the way.

Why did you consult with your friend?

Don't you have confidence in your judgement?

Especially after the BC went ballistic?

Where did your friend get the authority over rule you and why did you allow it?

If it appears that you don’t have confidence in your judgement ... do you think anyone else should have confidence in your judgement?

If this was a "get it right" call, you undermined your credabilty for at least the rest of that game and probably into the future with those coaches.

Just my opinion, do what works for you.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

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!

OK, let me take this one step further... if this is TECHNICALLY a balk, don't we have a statement in there saying that if the actions of the batter CAUSE a balk (and I think it's clear that in this case, it would be the actions of the batter causing the balk), then the balk award is not enforced. Unfortunately, if you follow this logic, you land on "no pitch" as the result, inadvertently validating OQ's 'solution' to the problem.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by SAump
This happened to me in a game. A pitcher throws a slow-curve and plunks the batter in the helmet. The batter could have easily backed away for a ball (HIGH) but he was determined not to show any fear. The batter turned his head and (in fear) ducked into it. He had thought about the pitch, leaned his head forward and allowed it to plunk him. I believe his courageous act was intentional.

I call it a ball and ask the batter to stay there. The 3B coach goes ballistic. I consult with my only other friend out there and he rules that the batter may not have had time to properly react to the situation. He comes up with the cheap "frozen headlights" analogy and overrules my initial decision. That doesn't make me feel any better, but I awarded first base to the batter who later scores.

You let partner OVERRULE you? How does he have that authority? If he convinced you to change YOUR call, fine. But it doesn't sound like he did... sounds like he simply overrode your call. This is wrong on so many levels, that I suspect you may have been hit with a rising fastball before allowing this to happen!

[jxt127]

I had a kid once duck his head down over the plate. First time I saw it the pitch was high over his head. Next pitch is belt high over the middle of the plate - Right into his helmet. His dad wasn't happy about the strike call but his coach only said - finally someone calls it.