You Make the Call #2`

[Bagman62]

Situation: Class AAA sectionals, losers bracket, loser goes home and winner gets one more game to advance to State finals. 3rd inning 0 to 0 R1 on 1B No Outs 2 Balls 2 Strikes

Batter is left handed and a pitch comes inside, batter bends at the waist and the ball hits the shirt hanging loose, PU call ball 3

Coach comes and questions if ball it the shirt, PU confirms it did. Coach asks for HBTP and Batter awarded 1B. PU denies the request and Coach asks why? PU states the shirt was not tucked in, coach asks what difference that makes and PU responds, " the uniform must be worn properly and if the shirt had been tucked in the ball would not have hit the shirt, no 1B awarded. PU says play ball and Coach say I can't believe it, are sure that is the rule and PU says that is the rule.

Play resumes. Was the call correct?

[3afan]

sounds like PU did right, especially if he told them at the pregame to get the shirts tucked in

[whiskers_ump]

I would agree to a point. Some shirts are being designed
to be worn outside the pants.
I agree that the ones that are not can easily be hit without
the ball touching the individual and this should not be an awarded
base if the pre-game conference included the fact that shirts
should be worn inside the pants uniform. Most shirts designed
to be worn outside are snug and the ball would just about have to
also hit the person wearing it.

[JEL]

Hit the shirt hanging loose on an inside pitch at the waist level?

Unless batter was real far off the plate, I got a STRIKE!

If ball was judged to be out of the zone then yes I have a HBP. However, if uniform was not being worn properly (not tucked in) shouldn't PU have issued a warning before the pitch?

[Dakota]

Technically, a bad call.

Game management-wise, a bad explanation, unless he had instructed them to wear their uniforms properly already.

In giving the explanation, he had his choice of lies (unless he was willing to award the base).

He could either lie about the rule (which he did - the rule requires the uniform to be worn properly but does not remove the HBP award if it is not) or he could lie about what he saw (better game management choice, IMO, once he has decided he is not going to follow the rule and award the base). "Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3." If he had already warned them about uniforms, he could say it such a way the coach gets the message.

[BretMan]

"Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3."

That explanation would be a poor choice!

Since he initially ruled that there was contact, he should have signaled an immediate dead ball.

If he did, that would blow the possible explanation offered above right out of the water. (Coach to umpire: "Then why did you call dead ball?")

If he didn't call dead ball on the HBP, then consider that he one more mechanic he needs to brush-up on.

[CecilOne]

The pregame does not need to cover anything that is in the rule book, just ground rules, time limits, league/tourney rules, etc.
It is standard practice to ignore contact with a uniform that is too baggy, incorrectly worn, held in the mouth, etc.
It's not a lie if you know a rule and present an interpretation/application you believe.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by BretMan
"Coach, in my judgment, the ball did not make contact. It was close, but I cannot say it made contact. Ball 3."

That explanation would be a poor choice!

Since he initially ruled that there was contact, he should have signaled an immediate dead ball.

I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact.

[AtlUmpSteve]

NFHS and ASA do not have that exception (loose uniform hit by pitch) to HBTP, while NCAA does. IMO, possibly the right call, but the wrong rule cited.

No, I wouldn't state the ball didn't hit the shirt; I prefer to be honest. But, in my judgement, the batter failed to attempt to avoid the pitch, thus dead ball, ball, no free base. No further explanation of judgement required (or desirable).

[BretMan]

Tom,

"I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact."

Then I'll rephrase my hypothetical question from the coach to the umpire (after his explanation offered that there was contact):

"Why didn't you call a dead ball?"

Your proposed explanation would work fine if the umpire did not call a dead ball, and merely called "ball 3".

If we are to assume from the original post that he did not call a dead ball, then the explanation offered to the coach that "it hit her shirt but it wasn't tucked in" would raise the question of why a dead ball wasn't called.

If he really did see contact (which he did, by his own admittance) then he should have called a dead ball. Right?

If he did not, then I would say that he needs to brush-up on that mechanic.

If he did kill the ball, as he properly should have, then the explanation you propose ("In my judgement there was no contact") wouldn't fly.

My only point, in a roundabout way, was that depending on which mechanic he used his "explanation" could serve to dig himself a deeper hole!

How about it Bagman62- was a dead ball called on that play or not?

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by BretMan
Tom,

"I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact."

Then I'll rephrase my hypothetical question from the coach to the umpire (after his explanation offered that there was contact):

"Why didn't you call a dead ball?"

Your proposed explanation would work fine if the umpire did not call a dead ball, and merely called "ball 3".

If we are to assume from the original post that he did not call a dead ball, then the explanation offered to the coach that "it hit her shirt but it wasn't tucked in" would raise the question of why a dead ball wasn't called.

If he really did see contact (which he did, by his own admittance) then he should have called a dead ball. Right?

If he did not, then I would say that he needs to brush-up on that mechanic.

If he did kill the ball, as he properly should have, then the explanation you propose ("In my judgement there was no contact") wouldn't fly.

My only point, in a roundabout way, was that depending on which mechanic he used his "explanation" could serve to dig himself a deeper hole!

How about it Bagman62- was a dead ball called on that play or not?

Bretman,

From the originial post:

"Batter is left handed and a pitch comes inside, batter bends at the waist and the ball hits the shirt hanging loose, PU call ball 3"

I believe that this would be admission and awareness of the
fact the he saw
the action.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Dakota
Technically, a bad call.

Game management-wise, a bad explanation, unless he had instructed them to wear their uniforms properly already.

In giving the explanation, he had his choice of lies (unless he was willing to award the base).

Quoting myself just to be clear.

I don't like his call, and I don't like his explanation, and if you are not going to make this call (speaking ASA), then you are backed into a corner of having to try to fudge (OK - lie was a bit harsh) your way around the rule and the coach.

What this umpire did was tell the coach that something was the rule when it wasn't.

Since in the originally stated scenario, I did not see a dead ball being called, I made the assumption that the umpire decided to ignore the ball hitting the uniform, and when the coach called him on it, he made something up to bluff the coach. At least, that is how I read it.

Hence - bad call, worse explanation.

I DO like the "no attempt to avoid" as a better way to handle this, assuming the batter made no or only minor attempt to avoid.

If I am allowing billowing uni's to remain untucked, shame on me. I would prefer the "FYC" tone to an explanation on why it was not called than a "bluff the coach" attempt.

[Bagman62]

Federation Rules

At a preseason clinic the question was asked " If a ball hits only the untucked shirt of a batter what is the call?" The answer was only a ball should be called, this is the only time I have seen a ball hit only the shirt and not the batter's body.

At pregame verified all players properly equipped and dressed.After game the UIC and a GHSA Represemtative said the call was the correct call. Over 1/2 umpires onsite that were asked agreed with the call so it is possible that was "misunderstood, bad, incorrect or wrong information given at the preseason clinic.

Thanks to all for giving clarification and opinions, I will get the call correct should this happen again.