Following the Rules
 

This happened in a game last night using NFHS rules. A pitch was inside to the opposing batter. He did not budge and it hit him in the arm. He was awarded first base. I called time and this is how the conversation went:

Me: Does he not have to try to avoid being hit?

PU: No. As long as he doesn't lean into it.

Me: Doesn't the rule say that he is not awarded first base if he makes no effort to avoid being hit by the pitch?

PU: That is not how "John" told us to call it.

Me: Well, I don't think that is right. The rulebook says different.

PU: That is the way I am calling it.

At this point I returned to my dugout and made the mistake of not protesting. I got out my rule book and eventually turned to rule 7-3-4.

After the inning ended, I approached both umpires as they were standing together at home plate. This is how this conversation went:

Me: Can I show you what I have found?

PU: Sure.

Me: It says right here the batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him. The penalty is the batter remains at bat (pitch is a ball or strike) unless the pitch was a third strike.

PU: I see what you are saying but "John" told us to call it this way.

Me: Even though it specifically says differently in the book?

BU (interjecting): "John" is our rules interpreter.

Me: So he interprets that rule to say something completely different than what I just read?

BU: Well, he must not know about that rule.

Me: Well, how are we going to call it now that we know what the rule is?

PU: We are going to stay with the way that I called it.

Me: So you are telling me that you know the rule, but you are not going to follow it?

PU: That is the fair thing to do.

At this point, I walked away knowing that I was not going to get anywhere with these two guys.

I know some of you will see me a "just another rat whining about umpires", but this really did happen and I would like input on how to deal with situations like this where you show an umpire the rule and he still refuses to follow it.

:eek:

Teach your pitchers to keep the ball out of the batters box, and the problem is solved. It's a common practice where I work games to award the base in this situation unless the batter leaned into the pitch. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a common practice in other associations.


Tim.

How far inside? Where in the arm? What kind of pitch? Could he (likely) have avoided it even if he tried?

All those factor into how the rule is interpreted.

You've been around long enough to know that what is printed isn't always exactly what is meant.

this is how it would go if i were the PU

You: Can I show you what I have found?

Me: If you don't put that book away and return to the dugout NOW, you're done.

Thanks
 

I knew it. Three replies and pretty much three defenders of the umpire. One of them who a couple of weeks ago can be quoted as saying:

"we would have expressed our sympathy to the coach for getting a good old fashioned screwing by a useless umpire with no sense of ethics.........."

I know this is a different situation all together, but nonetheless when a coach posts, he is torn apart no matter what the situation.

What if the coach had filed a protest at the point of the misapplication of the rule? Then would you have ejected him for getting out his rulebook?

Well, you can feel sorry for yourself if you want, but you asked what other umpires thought and you received three responses. I'll offer one more.

I think that the umpire got himself in trouble by denying that the rule says what it does, and then fobbing the denial off on the interpreter.

I had a coach ask me exactly the same question this past season. "Doesn't he have to make an effort to avoid that pitch?" I told the coach: "Yes. And he did. Take your base."

Like other posters, I'm not going to place an undue burden on the batter to avoid a pitch in the batters box. The burden is on the pitcher to avoid the batter, and the only way I'm keeping a hit batter in the box is if he moves into the pitch.

Now you're worried that I lied to the coach about whether the batter made an effort to avoid the pitch. I didn't lie: what does "make an effort" mean?

I'm with the umpires.

And no, coaches are not routinely torn apart. I have seen many posts along the lines of "the umpire screwed up - did you protest?"

I think that the umpire got himself in trouble by denying that the rule says what it does, and then fobbing the denial off on the interpreter.

I had a coach ask me exactly the same question this past season. "Doesn't he have to make an effort to avoid that pitch?" I told the coach: "Yes. And he did. Take your base."

I can live with that. I have thought players leaned into pitches before and asked if he attempted to avoid the pitch. When I was told he did, I assumed the umpire saw it differently than I did and I moved on.

My main concern was with him admitting that he knew the rule, but that he was going to ignore it. Maybe I should have made that more clear in my original post.

Thanks

Wait just a minute there Skip. You came here and asked a question (on an umpires forum), got three answers, and then blasted the umpires. You did not get three defenders of the umpires, you got one who defended the umpire, one who asked for more information regarding your specific play, and one who said the umpire handled it wrong. When you said: you have admitted to having your mind made up before you even started the conversation. If you want to come here and discuss the rule, and how that particular umpire handled it, we have no problem with that, but don't come here and blast people because you mistakenly thought the umpires were being blindly defended.


FWIW--The plate guy was wrong in the way he handled the situation. I was not there, so I cannot comment on the call, but what happened afterword, you have a right to be upset with.

You are correct
 

Thank you Big Tex. You are correct that I jumped to conclusions. I guess I let my frustrations from the game spill over into the discussion. I do appreciate all the help I get on this board. I have learned a lot over the past several years simply by reading posts that I am not even involved in. Some of the posts here have helped me avoid problems in my own games. I appreciate the people around here.

Do you really think the other situation in which I made the above quote is in any way similar to this one? I certainly didn't mean to appear to "tear you apart", but I do think you need to understand what the accepted practice is for many umpires in this situation.


Tim.

I pitched long ago. I don't know how many batters I hit, but over the years it had to be dozens. Only once did an umpire keep the batter in the box, and that was on a change-up, a little high and inside, on which the RH batter clearly stood still and let the ball hit him in the left elbow. (He did not lean into the pitch, however.) The batter complained a little, but not much. His coach said nothing.

There were other times in which the batter did not move, but I could tell that he simply froze. That might meet somebody's definition of "didn't make an effort to avoid," but it was obvious that HBP was the correct call.

Please explain "how you were torn apart"

Tim, Bob and Bobby answered you WITHOUT getting personal with you. What did they say that made you think You were "torn apart"

IMO, your tone with the PU (by bringing out the rule-book) is more in line with "tearing the PU apart" as opposed to the response you got.

The bottom line here is that

Your F1 threw a bad pitch. Was it "heat" a chang-up, slow curve

Perhaps B1 FROZE - it happenes. There are many factors.


The only issue I have with Blue is that he used his interpreter's name instead of just saying "Skip in my judgement the palyer made an effort" - end of story it's time to play.


Are you this sensitive in dealing with your players? If B1 hits a ground ball and "dogs" it to first are you going to say That's ok or are you going to make him sit the pine and put someone in who will hustle.

Pete Booth

What kind of pitch? A 65 mph breaking ball that doesn't break? Hitter better move.....An 85+ mph fastball...inside... hitter just sorta puckers...go on down.

Now if the hitter throws out a chicken wing or a knee...stay here slugger, your not going anywhere.

As said before..alot of variables in each situation.

How about a pitch that nicks a jersey? Really tough one for me..the way I see it...which I don't..is I gotta hear it...and if you really want it..sell it to me...roll around on the ground..because that what it takes on a nicked jersey.:D

And what was the purpose of the rule book? I have a problem with coaches coming out with a rulebook. Go ahead and read the rule..come out and tell me you read the rule..but leave the book in the dugout. By now it's too late anyway. You may have showed them..but the call stands...too late.

Granted they did blow it with the interpreter line of bs....and that's on them...but back on you for not protesting at the right time. You might have even won since these yo-yos didn't make it a judgement call..which we all know cannot be protested.



griff

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.

I assume that in the last case the batter either swung at the pitch or was hit while in the strike zone. In these cases the call would be correct - call a strike.

I think the next interesting question is - What if a ptotest WAS lodged??

I do not know your proceedures for protest ( I do fast pitch softball). In our tourneys, after coach says he protests, we collect $75 cash from him and suspend game and go to UIC for answer.

This would be interesting - Of course PU could THEN say that in his judgement, player tried - But that would be direct lie. Lets assume he told the truth. I gotta say protest is upheld.