Have to avoid?

[Rufus]

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?

[rbmartin]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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.

[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 rbmartin

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.

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.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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

[mbyron]

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!

[d26]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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!

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

MTD, Sr.

[SAump]

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

[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.

[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.