Hbp

[bigjohn]

HS baseball in Ohio. Kid stands in the box,pitch hits him on the forearm. He did not move a bit, just let the ball hit him. Coach asks the ump, doesn't he have to try to avoid that? Ump says, they changed that rule, take your base, batter.

Infractions by a batter were also addressed. The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.
In such a situation, the pitched ball is deemed either a strike or a ball and the player who permitted the ball to touch him remains at bat unless the pitch results in a third strike or ball four. The phrase ""or ball four"" was added to the rule to clarify the pitch needed to be called a strike or ball.
If the batter allows the pitched ball to touch him or his uniform, he is not automatically awarded first base.
The batter is not rewarded for “taking one for the team.”
If he allows the pitch to touch him or his uniform, he remains at bat and a ball or strike is called. Unless the pitch was ball four or strike three.

[StlCards]

Is there a question here?

[jicecone]

In Fed ball, the rule did change about two years ago from the batter "avoiding being hit" to "if he permits the pitched ball to touch him" 8-1-1d.1. There is a fine line here and judgement error on a pitch in the box, should favor the batter and award first.

I pretty much go by anytime a pitch hits a batter in the box, your sending him to first unless he makes some movement to get hit.

Had a game last Fri where coach was arguing about a pitch (curve ball that broke down an in on the batter) that hit the batters back knee. Said batter had to avoid. I told him that first of all he moved his front leg and second of all that is not where the pitch belongs.

[MD Longhorn]

If the pitch is so slow that any player at that age should reasonably be expected to get out of it's way - I don't award.

If the batter turns into the pitch or sticks out an elbow or knee - I don't award.

In just about every other case - give them the base.

[MikeStrybel]

The word permit is critical, as it is defined as allowing something to happen. "Permit a pitched ball to touch him" implies that the batter acted to get hit, either by not moving when he had time to do so or by placing himself into the pitch's flight. Sometimes you have to umpire - keep him in the box if he cheats.

[bigjohn]

Is there a question here?

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

[BretMan]

Quite often, when you see an umpire make an unusual call, then explain it away with, "It's a new rule this year", what you're getting is the umpiring version of, "The check's in the mail".

I don't really see how you could read the rule, then read that point of emphasis, and still come away thinking that a batter gets a free base for letting the ball hit him. So even if this guy was aware of the "rule change" (which was, for all intents and purposes, really more of an editorial change), he certainly doesn't seem to be aware of it's interpretation and application.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

This part is incorrect and causes confusion. The rule requires umpire judgment: did the player intentionally permit the pitch to hit him?

Some pitches give a batter time to get out of the way. But sometimes a batter freezes and doesn't know which way to move. If I judge that the batter deliberately allowed the pitch to hit him -- or even moved into it -- I'll keep him in the box. Otherwise, HBP.

If a coach complains, I'll tell him: if you don't want him to get 1B, don't pitch in the batter's box.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This part is incorrect and causes confusion. The rule requires umpire judgment: did the player intentionally permit the pitch to hit him?

Some pitches give a batter time to get out of the way. But sometimes a batter freezes and doesn't know which way to move. If I judge that the batter deliberately allowed the pitch to hit him -- or even moved into it -- I'll keep him in the box. Otherwise, HBP.

If a coach complains, I'll tell him: if you don't want him to get 1B, don't pitch in the batter's box.

Exactly. The onus is on the pitcher to not hit the batter. If the batter could reasonably be expected to move to avoid being hit or deliberately moves to be hit, that's one thing, but who put the ball into the batter's box in the first place?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

Close to true. Not sure it's CYA as the verbiage of the rule really did change. I wouldn't extend the verbiage of the rule to include that you "have to make an attempt to avoid" - in fact, it's pretty much exactly that which led to the rules change.

Consider the very young hitter that freezes in panic - that hitter did not "make an attempt to avoid" as the old rule stated - but the spirit of the rule is to award this hitter first base, and the new verbiage matches that.

Consider the pitch that bounces funny and hits the batter - again, no attempt to avoid - but the spirit of the rule (and now the verbiage) gives that batter first base as well.

I think the new verbiage more perfectly aligns with the true spirit of the rule.

Regarding the OP - neither new nor old verbiage (nor spirit) should give the player that leans into the pitch a base.

[bigjohn]

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

I don't see anything in this interpretation about the pitch being in the batter's box or out of the batter's box!

[jicecone]

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

As an experienced official I read that as a "batter attempting to be hit" to be a batter moving into a pitch. Which I have seen 3 times this year and called.
It just not as black and white as it reads and general thought is don't rule in favor of the defense (pitcher) when they don't follow the rules.

And last time I looked the pitcher is not allowed to hit the batter with a pitch. Was it intentional? You don't always know.

So who is more right here for being wrong?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

I don't see anything in this interpretation about the pitch being in the batter's box or out of the batter's box!

That's not an interpretation, it's a statement of concern. And you clearly don't understand the last sentence in it, which is what I explained to you.

[bigjohn]

Batter "permits" pitch to hit him - Umpire-Empire

[Welpe]

Nobody calls illegal helmet contact either.