Have to avoid?

[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.

[rbmartin]

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.

Remember, sometimes kids at that age just freeze like a deer in the headlights when a pitch is headed toward them.

When I was coaching, I would take tennis balls or bean bags and softly throw at them to teach my players to properly and safely get plunked (turn and tuck your head etc) if a pitch was headed toward them and they had no chance to avoid. Never would I tell them to intentionally get hit. I was just trying to avoid serious injury due to getting hit in the head, heart , genitals etc.

[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.

[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.