Intent to swing
 

I had a 50/70 game last night w/ 11 year olds. Inside pitch, the kid jumps out the way and tries to use the bat to prevent the ball from hitting him. The ball goes to the backstop. I called a strike on the swing. The third base coach comes running down and says, he did not intend on hitting the ball, he was protecting himself. I asked him if he hit a homerun while protecting himself, would we wave it off? Was this correct?

Did he try to hit the ball with the bat? That's all that matters. I don't think a home run is possible so the comment you made may be out of line.

DG:

While the batter may not hit a homerun, but the ball could have been rebounded into fair territory and the batter could advance to first base.

MTD, Sr.

I was commenting on the smart alek comment to the coach about hitting a home run while dodging a pitch. Read carefully and you will see that I asked "did he try to hit the ball with the bat. That's all that matters."

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?

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?

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

I always wonder what to do when a kid bails out of the way of a pitch coming at his legs, and as he does so actually waves at the ball with his bat. The waving at the ball was an unnecessary action, but it was hard to imagine calling it an attempt to hit the pitch either.

Was the pitch coming straight at him? If so I think we need to consider that this is just an 11 year old kid trying to protect himself. Yea, I know it could be considered as an attempt, but that's not a call I'm going to make on an 11 year old. Bigger boys, sure, but not in kiddie ball.


Tim.

Would you call a ball on a batter that clearly bailed out on a curve ball just because they are kids? The age has little or nothing to do with this. If the kid did not swing at the pitch, it would not be a strike.

Peace

Jeff,

That's why I asked if the ball was coming straight at him. Not an illusion, right at him. If so, that's not a call I'm willing to make. There's a difference between being afraid of being hit and defending yourself against that inevitabiltiy.


Tim.

Personally I would not care what the age of the players is. If the batter took a swipe at the ball and missed, it is a strike. If they do not want to get called for a strike, then do not strike at the ball. Just like I would call a foul ball if a batter ducked and the ball hit the bat.

Of course this is a judgment call, but I would not in the least hesitate to call a strike at all levels. The fact the coach used the "he was protecting himself" does not wash. The age of the players is relevant. There are 11 year olds that are perfectly capable of reacting appropriately to these types of situations.

Peace

Tim,

The kid bailed and took a chop swing (looked like a lumberjack splitting wood). Since the kid move straight back away from the plate and the swing was in the vicinity of the ball, I called it a strike. It was not a situation where the kid turned and brought the bat around with him. The swing, from my point of view, was to prevent the ball from hitting him, but with the intention of striking the ball.

I had it envisioned that he'd put the bat up in front of him as a sheild to protect himself.


Tim.

That's all you need, and all you should tell the coach.

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

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.

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".

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

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

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

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.

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.

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