Once again I will apologize to all who I offended by my "reaction" to the first few posts. Had I thought about it first, I would not have responded the way did.

As has been pointed out, I should have been more clear on what happened. Here is my attempt to do that:

--The pitch was a fastball and the batter just stood there.

--I did not come out of the dugout with the rulebook in my hand. I had it in my pocket and asked if I could show him before taking it out. Had he said "no", I would have never taken it out.

--My issue was not with the call as much as with the way it was handled after the fact. This has been addressed by some of the replies. I am glad to hear that I am not alone in feeling that he shouldn't have brought the interpreter into the discussion.

That one got me some strange looks from my fourth graders as I was laughing at the computer screen picturing the "mamma's boy" on my team being nicked in the jersey and rolling around on the ground like he had been shot.:p

Just want to let you know my edit is not an attack.Just my thought on the issue.

griff

The interpreter
 

I work a little baseball and a lot of basketball. I study the rules religiously. So do my interpreters. But they have issued "interpretations" that I do not agree with or which other officials do not agree with.

The NFHS has made a big push in basketball to have officials take their personal biases towards rules out of the game. If a player plants his butt in the lane for more than three seconds, we are told to call the violation...not make an independent judgment that "it was no big deal." But I have had interpreters "instruct" that if there is no lounge chair and sunscreen, do not call the violation.

The umpires at your game were following the rules as instructed by the person responsible for providing that instruction to them. You (and others here) did not like them "hiding" behind the interpreter, but the theory is that all umpires from that association will be consistent in that call. Perhaps they will take your concern back to their interpreter and get a clarification. I have done that with my interpreter...and sometimes he has changed his ruling. Other times, I have had officials from other regions and other states tell me the interpreter is wrong. He may be...but it is the way we are trained.

One more "real life" example. It is from basketball...but the point is about interpreters and officials who apply the rule. In Massachusetts, we use a 30-second clock for high school games. Question: what happens if the clock stops working during a game? The rule says there shall be an "alternative time piece." Our interpreter said the rule is firm. If there is no clock and no stop watch as an alternative, suspend the game. I have had other officials, athletic directors and coaches say that is wrong and not fair. They may be right. Or not. But given the clear instruction from my interpreter, I handle it that way. Your umpires told you clearly how they were told to call the HBP. You need to accept that and tell your defense to "turn two."

[QUOTE]BayStateRef,

IMO, you are missing the point. I have no problem with the umpires following the interpreters guidelines right or wrong. because many rules are subject to interpretation and it's important as an umpire association to be consistent from game to game.

The problem I have is that when the coach questioned him instead of staying within the rule they "copped out" and used the interpreter's name as rationale for calling what they did.

Let's use your 3 second lane violation as an example:

You call a 3 second lane violation and the coach asks you why

Are you going to say "Coach because John Doe our interpreter said so" or are you simply going to state the RULE and move on.

Pete Booth

You can protest the game without bringing the book onto the field, so yes, I would have ejected him. No need to try to show the umpire up, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.

I will preface by saying the umpires made their call based on the information they were supplied. This information is based on the "Intent" of the rule, not necessarily the "Letter" of the rule.

Your response to question based upon the letter of the rule may be correct, however, the umpires bungled their response due to lack of understanding for the intent of the rule.

A more appropriate response would have been, "Coach, it was a (describe whate ever type of pitch it was), that froze the batter in their tracks. Barring an "intentional" act to get hit with a pitch, they are being awarded first base. End of story.

Now, based on this hypothetical response, would you question this any futher?

I should have clarified. Here in Missouri, when a protest is "filed", the coach is given ten minutes to get out his rule book and show the umpire that he has misapplied the rule. I don't necessarily like this procedure, but this is what we are presented with in Missouri.

Now you are "pulling our leg"

We all know or I should say most of us know that Missouri is called the "show" me state, so IMO, you are making a Pun on Missouri.

But even In Missouri there is still umpire Judgement

Pete Booth

Actually that is really the way it works in Missouri. I completely understand that there is still umpire judgement. This changed from judgement and misapplication when he said that the batter does not have to make an attempt to avoid getting hit by the pitch.

After reading the responses, I have decided that I will see this situation in a different way now. Instead of worrying about whether an opponent is attempting to avoid the pitch I will instruct my players as to how to "take a pitch" without leaning into it.

Thanks again to all.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]I'll just change this a bit, to, "you don't call a 3 second violation and the coach asks you why." It's not only closer to the original, it's also more realistic. :)

See, you learned something!

If it is a fastball that is moving in on a batter, the batter has very little time to avoid it, so umpires are going to award an HBP unless it is obviously intentionally getting hit with the ball.

Coach,

Experienced umpires know that you umpire with the book and not necessarily by the book.

The HBP you described is a judgment call by the umpire. I seriously doubt that you could protest a judgment call. I would hope the umpire would instruct you that you can not.

Keeping the batter in the box on a HBP can be the catalyst for problems throughout the rest of the game. I can guarantee you that the umpire will catch grief every time it occurs for the rest of the game.

Here's a better thought: Instruct your pitchers not to throw the ball through the batter's box. Isn't that what started this whole discussion?

JJ

I believe that the coach in his original post stated that the umpire told him that the batter did not have to make an attempt to avoid the pitch. At this point, this call ceased to be a judgement call and became a rule issue. This umpire was showing that he did not know a rule and subsequently hiding behind his assigner.

I called a game with a guy the other night who not only didn't award first base on a hit by pitch, he called the batter out on strike three. Not only did he not get any grief from following the rules, the offensive coach actually told him that he made the correct call and explained to his player why he was called out.