Intent to swing

[ozzy6900]

"Hmmmm! Let's see there coach. Hands holding bat, bat hits ball, ball goes foul/fair. What more do you want?"

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Not always. For example, a pitch that hits a bat that is resting on the batters shoulder and was never moved, is still ruled fair or foul depending on where the ball goes, right?

Right, but I was commenting about the play under discussion. For the play under discussion whether he tried to strike the ball is all that matters.

[DG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not find that a smart aleck comment in any way. I think it is a legitimate question to a coach that is trying to question balls and strikes. He had every right to simply dump him. If the coach is stuck on the fact it was not a swing, then he we have the right to ask a question that helps him understand what he is really complaining about. I have also found this is a great way to turn the conversation in our favor when you ask coaches a question. Usually they do not have a good answer or it makes them think about what they are really complaining about and they know where they stand with you. The coach in this situation is trying to suggest the umpire was wrong based on a very flawed point of view.

Peace

You are kidding right? Have you ever seen anything close to home run hit in this situation? It was a smart alek remark. How about instead he says "coach, he tried to hit the ball".

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Let's look at another one:

Pitch comes in way inside. As RH batter backs out he turns his body to his left, rotating it 90 degrees and in the process, the bat moves from his right shoulder and crosses in front of him.

Strike? Nothing?

BALL, if he did not attempt to hit the pitch. It can't be nothing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DG

You are kidding right? Have you ever seen anything close to home run hit in this situation? It was a smart alek remark. How about instead he says "coach, he tried to hit the ball".

I am not saying that there was a serious possibility of a home run. I think you need to read what I said originally on this topic. I simply said the comment was a legitimate question to a coach that was asking a question not based on any rule. I guess the coach was being a smart aleck by suggesting that it is OK to for a kid to strike at the ball because "he was protecting himself." If the coach is offended by the comment, then do not come to the umpire with such a stupid statement. Also being a smart aleck is not always a bad thing with an unreasonable coach. You do not have to agree, not all of us have the same style to deal with coaches.

Peace

[NickG]

The point remains (despite the irrelevant chatter about home runs and whatever): the call was probably incorrect. Review Rule 2.0 "Strike". Intent to hit the ball is the key criterion for judging a swinging strike ("is struck at by batter and is missed"). If the batter is not swinging in an effort to hit the ball, it is not a swinging strike.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NickG

The point remains (despite the irrelevant chatter about home runs and whatever): the call was probably incorrect. Review Rule 2.0 "Strike". Intent to hit the ball is the key criterion for judging a swinging strike ("is struck at by batter and is missed"). If the batter is not swinging in an effort to hit the ball, it is not a swinging strike.

The reason the batter swings at the ball is not relevant.

Peace

[DonInKansas]

A kid swinging the bat to protect himself from an inside pitch is still trying to hit it. What, does the think the wind generated by the swing will blow it off course? STRIKE!

Who cares about the level of ball? Screwing with the rules early is how myths get started.

[njdevs00cup]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The reason the batter swings at the ball is not relevant.

Peace

My entire reason for using a homerun as an example to help the coach understand the point!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

My entire reason for using a homerun as an example to help the coach understand the point!

But the point you missed in telling the coach this is that swinging strikes and contact with the bat are treated differently. (As I was trying to point out in my previous posts)

In the example you cited to the coach, there is no need to determine intent...the batter hit the ball. However, in your real situation the batter did not hit the ball and one would need to determin if he truly offered at the pitch.

You gave the answer to one situation to explain another. No wonder coaches get confused.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

My entire reason for using a homerun as an example to help the coach understand the point!

You do not have to explain this to me. I use the same kind of responses and it works most of the time. Usually the "light bulb" goes off in their head and it takes away their remaining argument. Nothing works all the time but this works most of the time in these kinds of situations.

Peace