Have to avoid?

[SAump]

This is what it looks like.
Baseball Oddities | TOR@MIN: Bautista disputes home-plate ump's HBP call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thanks for the quick reply and totally agree that it's a judgment call. My question was directed more to his response that the batter doesn't have to attempt to get out of the way.

On that question, the rules state otherwise for OBR and FED but it is rare for a batter not to make any move at all, and then umpire must judge if he was fooled on the pitch or he allowed it to hit him. And then there are those that lean into one, and those are easy.

[SAump]

NFHS 7-3-4 A batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him. Penalty is the batter remains at bat (pitch is a ball or strike) unless pitch was third strike or ball four.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In your situation, I might have said, "The HS rule requires that the batter not permit the pitch to hit him. I didn't see the whole play, so I don't know whether the umpire ruled correctly."

That's pretty much what I did. I explained the rule (similar to the way I did earlier in this post) and stressed that it boils down to HP's judgement. I would never knowingly give them inaccurate information about the rules just to cover for another umpire. I do try to instill a little respect in the fan base of our local high school.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SAump

This is what it looks like.
Baseball Oddities | TOR@MIN: Bautista disputes home-plate ump's HBP call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

I can't imagine that Welke's initial call was to keep the batter at the plate for taking one for the team on that pitch. I think he probably called it a foul ball.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by DG

On that question, the rules state otherwise for OBR and FED but it is rare for a batter not to make any move at all, and then umpire must judge if he was fooled on the pitch or he allowed it to hit him. And then there are those that lean into one, and those are easy.

Thanks DG, that makes sense. I just thought it interesting that the HP responded that the batter doesn't need to try and avoid contact. If they did make a move to avoid and it was only slight I would think he would respond "Yes he did." Not that he owes anyone an explanation, of course, just that one response is at least in keeping with the rules.

It's interesting too to note the responses about the ball being pitched through the batters box instead of over the plate being a factor in enforcement of the rule. If that were the case wouldn't the rules stipulate that the batter needs to avoid contact only for strikes? I know in basketball there are "rules" and then there are "rules" (e.g., I've never called a 10 second violation on a free throw shooter, and barring a return of Alonzo Mourning probably never will, but the rule is definitely there). Is this a similar type of thing?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thanks DG, that makes sense. I just thought it interesting that the HP responded that the batter doesn't need to try and avoid contact. If they did make a move to avoid and it was only slight I would think he would respond "Yes he did." Not that he owes anyone an explanation, of course, just that one response is at least in keeping with the rules.

It's interesting too to note the responses about the ball being pitched through the batters box instead of over the plate being a factor in enforcement of the rule. If that were the case wouldn't the rules stipulate that the batter needs to avoid contact only for strikes? I know in basketball there are "rules" and then there are "rules" (e.g., I've never called a 10 second violation on a free throw shooter, and barring a return of Alonzo Mourning probably never will, but the rule is definitely there). Is this a similar type of thing?

No, this is not one of those (those exist in baseball, but not here). The rule is there so that batters aren't rewarded for leaning into the ball (don't tell Craig Biggio), and so that a batter who sees a pitch coming and simply stands there to let it hit him also doesn't get rewarded. But umpires recognize that every player's reactions are different and that 99% of the time, the player is not trying to get hit. Given that, as others have said, the ball doesn't belong in the batters box (in other words, the fault of the batter getting hit by a pitch lies squarely on the pitcher) - the default is going to be to award a base except when it's blatantly obvious that we shouldn't.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rufus

It's interesting too to note the responses about the ball being pitched through the batters box instead of over the plate being a factor in enforcement of the rule. If that were the case wouldn't the rules stipulate that the batter needs to avoid contact only for strikes? I know in basketball there are "rules" and then there are "rules" (e.g., I've never called a 10 second violation on a free throw shooter, and barring a return of Alonzo Mourning probably never will, but the rule is definitely there). Is this a similar type of thing?

The location of the pitch IS a factor under NCAA rules. Some posters think this is a good guideline to use in other codes, despite being potentially (and arguably) contrary to the written rule.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I can't imagine that Welke's initial call was to keep the batter at the plate for taking one for the team on that pitch. I think he probably called it a foul ball.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Rufus]

Thanks again for the thoughtful responses. I know my follow-up questions are picking nits but I appreciate all of you being willing to take them seriously.