Hit by pitch
 

Hope I get lots of umpires input here. How much wiggle do you give to a batter hit by pitch out of strike zone when he undeniably does not make any effort to avoid ball, or turns a leg or upper arm albeit slightly into the pitch.Even though batter is entitled to the box a "reasonable effort" should be made to avoid pitch should it not.

Not the answer you might want, but I would say it depends ...

Depends on the age of the kids involved,
Depends on what type of pitch it was etc.,

There are other criteria I would use, but pitch out of the zone, hits batter, he's pretty much getting first base unless he does something unusual which I think would be considered a deliberate attempt to get hit by the ball.


Thanks
David

In NCAA, the batter owns the box - he can freeze and just take the pitch. OBR doesn't allow that by the book - he has to make an attempt to not get hit, and that's different than turning and taking it in a better place.

However, this all happens so fast. The only time I've called batters back to the box is when they reach out to get hit.

The only time I bring a batter back to the box is one of two scenarios:
1) (Except NCAA rules) A batter looks a pitch into his body/arm. I am talking about tracking pitch and seeing it the whole way and not even flinching. (This is ok in NCAA as long as contact occurs in the batters box.)
2) (All Rule sets) A batter sticking out an arm or leg or other part of his body to get hit.

I had each type happen once this year, the first the batter understood that just taking the 40ish MPH fastball (38+ league) he had to at least flinch or I couldn't give him first, he walked on the next pitch any way.

The second one a batter ducked on an inside pitch but as he ducked he stuck his front elbow out and got hit right on the elbow. If he was the type to crowd the plate I would have had a strike but as he stood back from the plate that elbow was still 6+ inches off the plate so I just brought him back. I got less than 5 seconds of flack from the coach, and the batter never complained, he knew what was going on.

Jasper

All ages I work, 16 and up, unless the batter does something to cause himself to be hit and if the ball is in the box, he is going to first.

I don't reward the pitcher for throwing in the batter's box.

If the batter has a chance to move, then he needs to do so -- he can't "allow" himself to get hit. If he doesn't have a chance to move (including "freezing" on an inside fastball), then he doesn't have to move.

The NCAA rules use the term "freezes". It is not OK to track a slow pitch into the batters box without attempting to move, according to NCAA rule 8-2d(2) and the associated AR.

I'm well aware that many umpires award first base whenever a non-swinging batter is hit inside the box, regardless of whether the game is being played in NCAA or any other ruleset. That's fine, and maybe the rules should be written that way, but even the NCAA rules don't mandate an award when the batter is struck inside the box.

Although not related to the OP, another great "commentary" regarding an HBP situation.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | SD@LAD: Johnson awarded first upon umpire inspection - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

As usual, not sure what Angel was doing here either.

As usual, commentators don't have a clue.

After three replays they say, "Its clear that it hit him", then "when your bunting, you hand is part of the bat".

I have this theory in life that 60 - 75% of the public is stupid. Which means there are some VERY STUPID people out there and some not so stupid. Therefore we can establish an average.

Guess what group the majority of Sports Announcers fit in ?

Well, they almost got it..."When you're swinging or trying to bunt at it..." but then they had to go with THAPOTB. So I guess that means that a ball "hit" fair in that manner would be in play :-(.

But they got it right when they said "Uh-oh, here comes Angel Hernandez. We've gone 8 innings without anything unusual involving him, what now?"

I guess he needed to play the part of a doubting Thomas and see the hand himself instead of just letting the actions of the player make the call.

Mark Grant is good at doing umpire impersonations and impressions, but is somewhat clueless on the rules. Next time I see him (he only lives a couple miles from me and I know where to find him) I am going to tell him to stop spreading the biggest myth in baseball. Dick Enberg should know better, but alas, doesn't.

Steve, I certainly hope you do. Another good suggestion: have them get a sponsor like White-out or even just MLB to feature one myth of baseball rules per game. There are lists all over the Internet and they are usually 40 or more long. It could be framed as an Ask the Umpire segment too. The point is it would be a way to subject to ridicule statements like "The hands are part of the bat" and "the ball is foul if it hits the plate", etc, etc. Then maybe the announcers will stop repeating them.

I've got just the sponsor: get some cell phone carrier to do a "You Make the Call" segment - fewer dropped/missed calls and whatnot :-)

Regarding the OP:

YouTube - ‪Nyjer Morgan gets hit by pitch but umpire blows the call.‬‏

I don't agree with Davidson's call on Njer Morgan. That said, it seems you don't see the Biggio/Bonds elbow armor as much anymore now that those guys retired. I think if a batter gets hit in the torso or head, he needs to do something really out of the ordinary other than just turning his shoulder in to avoid getting hit on the forearm or hand which might break a bone.

The reason is very simple - the pitch does not belong in the batter's box.

Baseball Oddities | HOU@ATL: Downs gets hit by pitch, then strikes out - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

This looks like a very proper call (and very bad acting)

Question: Pitch is in batter's box but batter only turns to take the pitch in the back.

Is that enough effort to avoid for you all? I have a friend that wants a major bailout before he sends a batter to first.

Rita

I admit I don't to any actual college ball, the only time I even look into a NCAA book is for a local 19U tournament hosted by the top independent team from my area. So I only gave a quick glance to this rule. Fortunately the play didn't come up.

Thanks for the info I will do some better research before next year's tournament.

Jasper

I guess your friend would not have awarded Tony Clonigliaro nor Dickie Thon first base in that case. Doesn't sound like Ray Chapman would have qualified either.

Do you have any references less than 60 years old?

Tony C., may he rest in peace, was nailed in 1967, which is only 44 years old.

Sorry, got hung up on Ray Chapman.

The point is still valid.

Yes, my point is still valid, although I don't have a clue what "point" you were driving at. Chapman died in 1920 (91 years ago - it took MLB more than 30 years to introduce batting helmets after that, I guess they were waiting for a more contemporaneous reference, too). Like Steve said, Tony C got it in 1967 which was 44 years ago. Thon's was in 1984 which was 27 years ago. The "point" is that every generation has stellar players whose careers were ended because they didn't do a "major bailout" as is apparently required by Rita's friend as a condition to be awarded first base after being hit with a pitch.

I think that your friend might be a former pitcher. ;)

I'm a pitcher's umpire for balls and strikes, but a batter's umpire when it comes to being hit. In most of my games, batters get hit when a pitch gets away from F1 or when he tries to come inside and misses. I see no reason for the batter to pay for the pitcher's mistakes.

The only exception is the batter who's hanging over the plate. He put himself in harm's way, so he needs to do a little more to get out of the way if F1 comes inside.

While a batter is required to avoid a pitch, not stated by the rule but something an umpire might want to consider: Was the pitch, in fact, avoidable?

With a pitch right at the batter, in most cases no amount of contortion is going to get him completely out of the way. If something is truly "unavoidable", is it really possible to avoid it? Turning away in a defensive move to lessen the impact, or protect oneself from more serious injury, should satisfy the requirement of "attempting to avoid" something that is by it's nature "unavoidable".

I've worked with partners that want to see come sort of full-fledged jump out of the way by the batter. This ain't dodgeball! Give the batter every benefit of the doubt.

The pitch does not belong in the batter's box so if the batter makes any movement (other than offering at the pitch), you can make the award. When the DC whines, just repeat what I said first "The pitch doesn't belong in the batter's box".

IMO there are three types of pitches that you need to deal with in the games most of us on this board do, as Mbyron has also implied:

1. (98% of the time) Bad or errant pitching. Unless that batter does something to obiviously get hit by the pitch, chances are real good I'm sending him to first. To expect the batter to make exhorbant moves to not be hit by a pitch in the batter box below the shoulders, well I'm going with the batter. Anything above that, well you know self-preservation is kicking in. The rule book allows me to make the call and this is the criteria I have established to be in compliance. By the same token if it is obvious your trying to get hit with the pitch over the plate, your staying to finish your at bat.

2. (1%) Send a message pitch. I have umpired games were some players just needed a correction factor applied to their method of approach to the game, attitude and overall sportsmanship. It was artfully handled by the pitcher and always below the shoulders, and very effective in getting the message across of how the game should be played. The batter was sent to first however the players handled a situation that was much more effective than I could of done.

3.(1%) The intentional Bean Ball. If you do enough baseball you have a pretty good idea when you should be looking for this. You may have already given warnings and you should be jumping all over this with an ejection. It is obvious what has to be done here. There is sometimes a fine line between No. 2 & 3 but, with experience you should have no problem discerning this.

Well put
 

I agree totally, nicely stated.

Thanks
David

Rules and their interpretations do change over the years, so I would think his point is that he'd like some more recent examples. ;)

I actually got a chance to use this in my game this morning. The batter had no time to really "avoid" anything, he merely raised his arm a bit to get hit in a more favorable spot. The DC came out, did his little song and dance, and I said the pitch was well inside the batter's box, and that's his box. He grudgingly agreed, and we continued playing the first of a long, humid, and grueling all-day double header.

Do we all agree Hernandez should not have inspected the batter's hand for injury? I only ask because this situation has happened twice when I was umpiring behind the plate. Both times I did not award first to the batter because I did not see the ball hit the batter's hand, and they were both wood bat games, and I couldn't go off sound, either. Both times the offensive team's managers got themselves ejected when they went nuts over my decision.

I couldn't follow the link, but in general, I think inspecting the hand is proper in MLB

Yeah, I thought that was a little goofy. Inspecting the hand can tell you only THAT the ball hit the hand, not WHEN (specifically, not whether it hit bat then hand or hand then bat).

It hit the hand first (according to some pro umpire trainer whose name escapes me).

It's this play's version of "the tie goes to the runner." ;)

Never heard that before, but I'm ok with it. :)

The version I heard about was obscebity laced too.

On the order of "Hey stupid, it hit the batter's hand first"

See how nicely this works! I no longer have arguments on HBP. I just have babbling, burbling coaches (as you saw) that can't really argue the issue any longer.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | CHC@BOS: Byrd is hit in the face by pitch, exits game - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Marlon Byrd, earlier this year. Tragically it did not look like he had time for a "major bailout" - would that he did. As I recall, Clonigliaro and Thon "froze" in a similar fashion. There simply was not time to react.

On watching the video, it made me wonder if the all-white retro Red Sox uniform might have had a part in the incident. He was probably trying to pick the ball up out of an all-white hat. There are current rules that say the pitcher cannot have a white glove and there are numerous questions about jewelry, sunglasses and even eyeblack. I propose that it would be a very good idea in the future to ditch a retro-uniform that has a white hat for the safety of the batter. Just my two cents:

What was the obscebity? God Dabbity?

Crap, I thought he was using some high-falutin' school word I had never heard before, trying to show off how smart he is. I was too embarrassed to ask what obscebity meant. I didn't see the typo.;)

Really? An MLB pitcher was told he had to wear an undershirt because it was ruled that his abundant tattoos might be distracting to the batter. And a completely white hat directly in the line of the pitch wouldn't be?? C'mon. That is why they block off bleacher seats and/or have dark screen in CF, isn't it?

I'll second Ozzy's comment. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

Really? Another MLB pitcher was told he had to take a small pin of an American flag off his cap due to distraction. An all-white cap would seem to at least be worthy of further review by MLB.

You're not going to stop, are you?

I never took typing. Therefore I sometimes hit the wrong letter. BFD.

Something's wrong - we agree on an issue.

OK, perhaps we could start a lengthy thread to discuss the LL rule interpretation where the pitcher cannot wear a glove with a white logo on the wrist strap. If the minutiae of LL tourney rules are allowed/encouraged to be discussed at length, how is my white hat comment out of line. I simply brought it up the possibility that it might be a factor in having the batter freeze and risk a career ending injury.

Can't discuss a non-existant interp.

Now in FED - they have (had?) one like that.

Rich, I understand there is no specific rule against the Red Sox all white throwback uni, although some come pretty close. I know there are several influential umpires on this site. After watching the replay of Byrd's horrific HBP, I thought it was worthy enough to be a contributing factor and that someone might ask it of the powers that be to lessen the risk of another tragedy. I can't really see where that is out of line for this site.

Remember that kid?
 

Remember that kid back in school who always had his hand up, even before the teacher finished the question? The kid who felt the need to add addtional information, relevant or not, to every statement made by others?

And, the kid who after even the teacher tired of hearing from, would then seek out classmates, between classes, and regale them with his opinions on subjects no one cared about?

And, the kids, that once exposed to a small bit of information from his parents, friends, magazines, pen-pal...who and what ever...considered it Gospel and decided he had a duty to share it?

Remember that kid?

He grew up to become a troll.

MrUmpire, I say this with all respect and honestly - I really appreciate your comment. You are a good judge of character. Hard to change after 58 years. Thank you.

I know I'm gonna regret this, and people I respect on this site will curse my name, but I can't resist:

Larry, will you please, in as few words as possible, tell me how in the name of Abner Doubleday the BATTER's uniform [color, design, ANYTHING ABOUT IT] could POSSIBLY "contribute" to his being HBP? Or be "distracting"? Or even be mildly interesting to talk about among umpires?

1) my comment concerned the PITCHER'S uniform (Red Sox throwback 1918 all-white including a solid white hat. (You put the emphasis on BATTER, I didn't) - watch the video per my link.
2) I was wrong. Billy Martin argued the point when the Yankees played the ChiSox when they came out with the clam-digger with white undershirt. A Chicago pitcher actually removed his but the league afterwards ruled it was OK.
3) sorry to have wasted time and bandwidth.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | CHC@BOS: Byrd is hit in the face by pitch, exits game - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

The link I mentioned in case you didn't see it

Baseball rules corner: regulations prevent pitchers from distracting batters | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET

This article discusses several situations throughout the history of MLB where umpires and the league office made rulings on pitchers having distracting paraphernalia. Protests have actually been lodged about it.

Here's my guess on the situation...the batter didn't get out of the way because...it's not always easy getting out of the way of a 90 mile per hour moving object...especially if he was expecting something else.

Exactly. And it is made even less easy by trying to pick up the ball out of a six and a half foot tall tampon on the mound.

At the risk of entertaining this, as others have made it a point not to, I really doubt that had anything to do with it.

I presume you watched the video, correct? Did you catch the part toward the end where the camera could not compensate for the intense white of the pitcher's hat when it focused on him? Freeze the video right before Byrd takes it in the left eye. His eye, the ball and the white hat are all in a line. Nah, couldn't have possibly had a thing to do with it. Not the slightest chance.

If you could hit you'd know the ball doesn't come out of the pitcher's uniform or head.

And don't forget.. your hand is part of the bat.:eek: