ASA slow pitch:

According to 7-5-B, "If the batter swings at a pitch after the ball hits the ground or plate, it is a ball.

Effect: The ball is dead and runners cannot advance."

What if:

1. The batter takes a normal hard swing at a short pitch and hits the ball (fair) on the short hop (just after it hits the ground).

2. The batter takes a normal hard swing at a short pitch and, just after the ball hits the ground, either misses it or fouls it.

Would these situations qualify under 7-5-B? Do we call a ball in these cases?

If this is <i>not</i> considered swinging "after the ball hits the ground or plate," is this a live ball under (1) and a strike or foul under (2)?

Seems self-explanatory to me. Dead ball, NO if's, ands or buts.

Pitched ball hits ground, batter swings, DEAD BALL.

Bob

I hate to make this a semantics discussion, but read the rule. It says if they swing AFTER the ball hits the ground, it's dead ball and a ball awarded to the batter no matter the fact he/she swung. Now, what if the swing starts before the ball hits the ground? What I've been told in the clinics is that the play goes on, because it was swung at before the ball hit the ground. If the swing starts after the ball hits the ground, then the swing is ignored as if it never happened.

I too have been taught the same as Welsch. I believe (and have heard discussed) that the rule is not there to prevent batter from swinging at a low pitch that happens to barely bounce before contact. I think it's there to stop a swing on balls that bounce VERY early (or roll) or those that hit the plate and bounce straight up.

Another reason for the rule (from what I've heard) is eliminate those late swings when a person realizes he/she will get a ball because of the pitch not being in the strike zone. I had someone realize the pitch was a bit deep, so he swung, but the ball had already contacted the ground. I called ball, and he said that he swung. Even the catcher started to say it, and I said, it hit the ground before the swing. They looked at me like I was wrong or something. Geesh.

Why would they swing to avoid getting a ball called? They want to hit and don't want to walk?

The rule is there because it is a DEAD BALL! Period. When they began stealing, it became even more relevant that ball became dead in this circumstance.

A batter may not put a dead ball into play. I don't care if it is a roller to the pitcher or a 450' smack over the fence. It is a ball on the batter.

Man, talk about overanalyzing something.

Play ball.

<b>. . . it is a DEAD BALL! Period.</b>

Please—what does "it" refer to? Exactly what is a dead ball? Any ball that hits the ground or plate before it is hit?

If so:

(1) In the two cases in my original post, the pitch is called a ball the same as if the batter did not swing at it.

(2) When the book says, ". . . swings at a pitch after the ball hits the ground or plate," it includes a swing that gets most of the way around—well in front of the plate—before the ball hits the ground or plate

(3) Ref Ump Welsch and mcrowder were taught wrong at their clinics.

Right?

If it's not right, the rule is extremely misleading when it says, "swings . . . <i>after</i> the ball hits the ground or plate," and should be rewritten.

Well that was nice and misleading, Mike.

In none of these cases is the ball dead prior to the batter hitting it. To say "the batter can't put a dead ball into play" is irrelevant. The ball's not dead (even in the extremely obvious cases) UNTIL the ball is hit or swung at.

We are not OVERanalyzing anything. The question is ... if the swing begins before the ball hits the ground, should we still be ruling dead ball - or is it only dead if the swing begins AFTER the ball hits the ground? I think we've all seen low pitches that strike the ground just barely prior to contacting the bat - and not seen it called dead.

greymule asked: "Why would they swing to avoid getting a ball called? They want to hit and don't want to walk?"

Answer: You know there's some idiots at the lower classification rec leagues who think if they can get their batting average up and keep the walks down, they might move up the ranks. Need I say more?

According to Bob Mauger, Chief (?) UIC of NJ, any ball that hits the ground before the bat hits it is a "ball," and the swing does not count. In other words, those clinics taught the rule incorrectly.

Therefore, while ASA's wording "swings . . . after the ball hits the ground or plate" may have been clear to the people who knew what they meant when they wrote it, it can easily be misinterpreted by the non-mind-readers among us. Fully precise wording would take some thinking, but better might have been something like, "A batter cannot legally swing at or hit a ball that has hit the ground or plate." The insertion of an example or two wouldn't have been a bad idea, either.

This would also mean that when a batter swings and misses a pitch such that the bat passes the ball after the ball has hit the ground, that swing does not count and we are to call a ball. That one's not going to be easy to sell on a 3-2 pitch, but I must admit I'm eagerly looking forward to making that call.

You mean like, "Any pitched ball that hits the ground or plate cannot be legally swung at by the batter. If the batter swings at a pitch after the ball hits the ground or plate, it is a ball."

Why is it that your posts concentrated on the last sentance and not the previous one?

People, this is so simple, that I find it hard to believe this discussion is even taking place among folks claiming to be veteran umpires.

You all need to read 7.4 & 7.5 in it's entirety.

BTW, Bob and I have shared time, food and brew, and he is the UIC for the ASA state association of NJ.

<b>You mean like, "Any pitched ball that hits the ground or plate cannot be legally swung at by the batter. If the batter swings at a pitch after the ball hits the ground or plate, it is a ball."

Why is it that your posts concentrated on the last sentance and not the previous one?</b>

Even taken together, the sentences are ambiguous. The word "then" must be assumed in the first sentence, as in "cannot <i>then</i> be legally swung at," since obviously if the swing comes before the ball hits the ground or plate, it's a strike. So there's still the question of whether they are talking only about a bounce followed by a swing or including a swing simultaneous with a ball that hits the ground.

If the sentences were clear, I would have understood them, and other experienced umps, some who post on this board and others who do not, wouldn't have admitted that they weren't sure. And conflicting, erroneous rulings wouldn't have been taught at clinics.

I don't think it's illogical or amateurish, or whatever other pejorative you want to apply, to question whether a swing and miss—in a legitimate attempt to hit a ball in flight—should be called a ball because the ball hit the ground a split second before the bat went past it.

Show these sentences to 50 ASA umpires and you will get a variety of interpretations—except from the mind readers who have the uncanny ability to discern when the ASA book is to be taken literally and when it is not.

Guys..this one is not hard and tends to get overanalyzed. any ball in sp that hits the ground before its contacted with the bat it a deal ball and a ball. Period.

The first comment alone indicates to me that you have not completely read the rules or refuse to accept anything other than what you want to read. I don't know what your agenda may be, but I'm unimpressed by the position you often take.

Discussion is fine and helps people along the way. When an issue is raised, discussion takes place, rules are read, opinions are offered and known interpretations are offered, sometimes first-hand. Yet, it seems there is often something you don't like.

Constant complaints about grammar, syntax, context, plural demonstratives seem to take precedent over the rule itself. The rule book is a tool for umpires and coaches to follow as the manner in which the game should be played. The only manner in which it is effective is if it communicates to ALL of those people, not just the literary-sensitive.

I am not stating that the ASA rule book is perfect, it's far from that. However, I don't care as long as it fulfills the purpose for which it was meant.

Henry Pollard often tells a story about a "Super" play who didn't care for a strike that was just called. The batter turned to Henry and, with a snarl, asked, "Where was that pitch at?" Henry immediately corrected his grammar. The player took his advice and replied, "Okay, where was that pitch at, ***-hole?" Henry stopped correcting player's grammar.

People used to pay good money to through bricks, real or styrofoam at a TV screen showing an annoying Howard Cosell. Dennis Miller could not hold the job at which many oafs like Dan Dierdorff, Sonny Jurgeson, Don Meredith and a host of others thrived. Sesquipidalians are rarely good communicators when addressing the masses.

Just because something doesn't pass your grading curve does not mean it is not suitable to accomplish it's purpose.