Has anyone read the article on pages 4 and 5 about "Making final decisions on points not covered". Have they totally lost their minds? A do over? Is the Fed that hard up for articles that they want us to start considering doing do overs?

That might be the stupidest article I have ever read (and I have read many of Rollie's).

In case you missed it here is what it says:

Count is 3-2, batter leans into a curve ball. The umpire is unsure if the pitch would have been a strike or ball had it not hit the batter.

What to do when this happens:

Call time, tell batter to say in box.

Gather head coaches and umpires in a big circle.

Say to defensive coach "I can't call him out because the pitch wasn't in the strike zone, but it might have been without his unsportsmanlike act."

Say to offensive coach "I'm gonna let him remain as a batter, but if he ever pulls that stunt again in any game I'm umpiring, I will eject him without any warning.

Say to both coaches "That's my ruling. There's nothing in the book to cover it. So, smile, nod, and go back to your positions and let's play ball.

Return to the plate and signal 3-2, and say "Batter, never bull that stunt again."

*******************

There are other potenital outcomes such as giving the batter first base or ejecting him, but those are shot down as not being as good as the do over. The do over will be the call which is "most easily sold" according to the article. I think we may have found Rollie's long lost twin.

You might as well just eject the defensive manager before the pow-wow and save time. It's an eventuality anyway if you pull this stuff.

What ever happened to ring him up and set him down.



Tim.

Who would be the author of this article, so we can brand him with the award: "Worst advice ever given in a published article."?

Does official's quarterly proofread this crap?


This play IS directly covered in the rules. Call it a strike. The part where it says "the umpire is unsure whether or not it would have been a strike", the umpire should give the benefit of the doubt to the pitcher and ring 'em up.

AHHHHHHH, ring 'em up, he's out. A do-over! Do-overs will not get you home quicker.

I think the gist of the article is that there are things that could happen that are not covered by the rules. If you read the article there are a number of alternatives that could have been applied.

The author simply gave his opinion on how he would have handled the situation. It is an interesting problem that is not addressed by the rules. A full count bases juiced an obvious ball when it struck the batter who leaned in to the pitch that may or may not have been a strike if it didn't hit the batter. Call it a ball and send the batter to first. Is that fair to the defense? Call it a strike (keep in mind it's an obvious ball) is that fair to the offense? I've got no rule to hang my hat on. Perhaps a "do over" is fair to both teams in this case. As UIC you do have the authority to make this type of ruling. I've called many a batter back after leaning in to a pitch but never on a 3-2 pitch as outlined in the case.

Championship game State Finals bottom of the seventh score tied. The above happens all the "Big Dogs" are in the stands what's your call?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gordon30307

Quote:

Championship game State Finals bottom of the seventh score tied. The above happens all the "Big Dogs" are in the stands what's your call?

"Dead Ball - Strike 3."---on to the top of the eighth.

Anybody who argues is getting tossed.

The batter intentionally allowed the ball to hit him, and I'm not rewarding his action. He was banking on the pitch being a strike, or he would have simply took the pitch for ball four. So, based on that, I would always call strike in this situation.

One thing I'm not doing is "it over." How retarded.

If the pitch was heading for the strikezone (with leeway), this is a deadball strike. If it was not, it is a deadball Ball. Why in the WORLD would anyone want to make this a do-over?

However, those that say this is the worst article every have not read Rollie. :) In fact, this sounds VERY much like something he would write.

I can't remember the last time I agreed with PWL, but I do so now.

I apologize. I meant no disrespect to any person with my comment. I am a physically handicapped person myself.

I used the word in a sentence, not directed at anyone. It was used to describe a ridiculous interpretation. Retarded is a word. It doesn't insult anyone unless the word "mentally" is attached to it. There are many forms of retardation in the world, as in "smoking retards growth" for example.

And no, I don't use that word out on a ballfield. I used it on an internet forum, in which it would be considered very mild in comparison to the usual drivel contained herein. I would never use that term in regard to a person in any derogatory way. Saying that something is retarded is an expression. I didn't say that the person was retarded. PWL should worry more about the shenagins he pulls on the field, and quit worrying about what a far superior umpire does.

And I have agreed with PWL on several subjects, but he never acknowleges those instances. He chooses to ignore them, and instead dwell on the negative, as in this case. I made a perfectly good point, yet he chose to point out a word choice. I would say "how lame," but he would probably come back that I was now insulting people who have trouble walking.

Not PC,

Steve

We had this happen two years ago to end a HS game with two heated cross-town rivals. Bottom 7, two outs, bases jacked and a 2-2 count on the batter. Pitcher threw a letter high curve on the inside part of the plate, and the batter leaned forward and got it with his elbow. Crown goes nuts, R3 comes running home, tied game...Home plate umpire rung his *** up to end the game.

Now he may have caught a lot of crap walking to his car, and I'm sure he did because it's a half mile to your car at that school. But he made the right call, and his stock went up as a result. Was the pitch a strike? Probably not, but it doesn't matter. There's a school of thought that penalizes the player who tries to gain an unfair advantage, especially if he's on offense.

You want the big game? Don't run from the tough call.

By the way...when's the Fed going to adopt the NCAA interp of the hit batter (if the ball is inside the vertical lines of the batter's box, he doesn't have to move)?

Stop picking boogers.

Steve apologized and clarified his intent. Geezsh. Next we'll have people complaining about the color of the wheels on an indicator.

Get a life. Or better yet - go play with BigDump on his website.

Well,
 

. . . there are, of course, two situations where umpires are required to do "do overs" but this article takes the cake.

If you can't call the location of a pitch where the batter 'leans' into it, you should not be behind the plate.

Phil said this was a situation not covered by the rules. That's just flat wrong.

The rules are crystal.

Read Alan Roper's explanation tomorrow in Officiating.com.

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.

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]

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.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_7_23.gif

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

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

Intentional Interference?
 

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.

last little pearl of wisdom
 

"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.

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]

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.

What should I DO?
 

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.

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]

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.

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.

Re: What should I DO?
 

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! ;)

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.

Feel free to massacre this as you prefer, but why not 7-3-1-5? A small stretch, but it gets an immediate out for the deliberate 'interference'