Have to avoid?
 

OBR 6.08 (b) - The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when - He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball; If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.

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.

With that as the setup 13U USSSA tournament this weekend (modified OBR, nothing in USSSA rules different from the above - I included Fed just to see if there's any difference between rule sets). Batter stands still as ball is pitched and gets plunked, no attempt to move. The ball hit him on the hip so it wasn't so far behind him that he was frozen and couldn't move. As he's trotting down to 1st I say "Doesn't have to attempt to get out of the way?" HP say "No, he doesn't." I pause, then say "Oh, I must've been playing under European Baseball rules all these years."

Other than the fact I should've have been getting text updates about the game from the parking lot from that point on, and that "attempt to avoid" is a judgment call (although in this case the batter didn't even flinch), doesn't the batter have to at least attempt to get out of the way of a pitched ball?

Yes, he just doesn't have to try very hard.

The rules you state are clear. But when I am at HP, it has to be pretty obvious to me that the batter a) knows he's going to get plunked & b) has sufficient time to get out of the way & c) choses not to so he can get an easy base, before I keep him at home plate.

Speaking only for myself, it has to be real obvious.

Exactly. Perhaps the pitch shouldn't have been in the batter's box in the first place.

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.

Agreed, although I'd add that unless it's the result of a bonafide (but obviously exceedingly poor) attempt to not get hit, if the ball was not going to hit the batter, and he moves in such a way that he does get hit, I might not give the base.

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.

+1
Never allow them to move into a pitch like Fernando Viña of the Cardinals used to do frequently.

Next time a batter gets hit by a pitch in the batters box and a coach complains that he didn't move, perhaps I'll try to remember to say, "Coach, he did NOT permit it to hit him, he just didn't move."

That'll give him something to think about!

If batter is in a batter's box (as opposed to standing with something in strike zone), and batter did not make an effort to get hit, then the batter DID try to avoid. The batter may not have taken evasive action as the "pitch" arrived, but they did try to avoid before the "pitch" arrived.

Have this conversation once each year the first time I get a certain skip.

Also keep in mind that the pitch does not belong in the batter's box. NCAA is the only one who specifies this but it holds true for all 3 codes. The pitch belongs at the plate, so if it goes into the batter's box, the slightest move is enough for me to send the batter to 1st.

There is also a fine line between the Batter waiting for the curveball to break over the plate and him taking one for the team. He certainly doesn't want to bail out early and have the Umpire call a strike. His own bench will get a laugh at his expense.

That's cold and funny. I can just see the coach's face right now: :confused:.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry Rufus, if the pitcher doesn't want to avoid hitting the batter, I'm certainly not going to encourage him.

THROW THE BALL OVER THE PLATE!

I did see (as a spectator) a high school game tonight (12th inning score 3-3) in which a pitch was only slightly inside and the batter (leadoff hitter) dipped his elbow into the pitch and was awarded 1st base. (Mild protest by defensive coach.) Had I been behind the plate I think I would have kept him at home but as some of the people around me started asking me the rule I supported my brethren in blue.

Be careful about that. I never throw the official under the bus, but I don't give out misinformation about either the rule or about what just happened.

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."

No, batter must protect himself
 

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

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.

Literal meaning?
 

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. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was thinking the same thing.

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.