Proposed NCAA Rule Changes

[CelticNHBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Anybody think this wasn't a coach's idea?

Mike-

This has actually been the directive to umpires for a few years now. We (umpires, ok Emily) have been pushing to get the wording in the rules to align with what was reasonable to judge as an attempt to avoid being hit. The premise is that the ball does not belong in the batter's box. The reasoning behind the change was due to very inconsistent application of the hbp rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue

Mike-

This has actually been the directive to umpires for a few years now. We (umpires, ok Emily) have been pushing to get the wording in the rules to align with what was reasonable to judge as an attempt to avoid being hit. The premise is that the ball does not belong in the batter's box. The reasoning behind the change was due to very inconsistent application of the hbp rule.

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

Allow me to throw in my perspective on this issue. A few years ago, there was a rash of batters finding ways on "avoiding" the pitch and still being hit. They did this by turning their backs to the ball as if to avoid the inside pitch, then leaning in. Coaches didn't like this, so we (the umpires) were put onto high alert, which resulted in a lot of "right here!" The reaction to this was the idea of being "frozen" to make the distinction between moving to avoid being hit, and moving to be hit. Thus leading to the inconsistent application. While I didn't see the two plays in this year's DI championship tournament, one resulted in an awarded base, the other resulted in no awarded base. The latter of the two (which I believe was the award) was highly contested by the DC.

Personally, I favor the proposed language. It removes all argument from the DC. I had one this year (DI game) in which the batter began her swing (stride and hips, keeping her hands "back" like a good hitter), the pitch was up and in and hit her in the chest. DC (who's name appears in the rule book of an amateur association we discuss frequently in this forum) said she initiated contact with the ball. The pitch was at least a foot inside the batter's box. New language keeps him quite.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Personally, I favor the proposed language. It removes all argument from the DC. I had one this year (DI game) in which the batter began her swing (stride and hips, keeping her hands "back" like a good hitter), the pitch was up and in and hit her in the chest. DC (who's name appears in the rule book of an amateur association we discuss frequently in this forum) said she initiated contact with the ball. The pitch was at least a foot inside the batter's box. New language keeps him quite.

Keeps him quite what?

I don't disagree with the point this quiets the DC, and may make an umpire's job somewhat easier. But should those be reasons to change what has been a standard for quite a while? If it is, would not eliminating the LBR also keep the DC quiet? Ohh, sorry, momentary sense of intelligent reasoning.

But the problem, and subsequent arguments, that will now be prevelant will still involve the batter "stepping" into the hit the ball and end up being hit by the ball and the umpire will STILL have to make a judgment similar to whether the batter attempted to avoid a pitch or not.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Keeps him quite what?

I don't disagree with the point this quiets the DC, and may make an umpire's job somewhat easier. But should those be reasons to change what has been a standard for quite a while? If it is, would not eliminating the LBR also keep the DC quiet? Ohh, sorry, momentary sense of intelligent reasoning.

But the problem, and subsequent arguments, that will now be prevelant will still involve the batter "stepping" into the hit the ball and end up being hit by the ball and the umpire will STILL have to make a judgment similar to whether the batter attempted to avoid a pitch or not.

When did you become an English teacher. If you make fun, I just may become quiet for the rest of the thread

If the new language passes, then the only judgment is if the ball is in the batter's box of over the plate.

And I've never had a DC argue a LBR infraction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

....And I've never had a DC argue a LBR infraction.

I have; many times; (those would be the uncalled LBR "infractions" ...) Although, the leaving early uncalled "infraction" is much more common!

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

FYI, the range of HBP ruling is wider than you might think. I had an umpire not award a HBP to a batter struck in the back while in the batter's box even though she moved, her movements were backwards (towards backstop) and rotating which umpire felt wasn't a good enough attempt to avoid being hit.

If a player turns their back to a pitch and in doing so puts their back outside the batters box and into a pitch, that's different. IMO There NEVER should be a ruling about avoiding the pitch when the pitch enters the batters box.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

FYI, the range of HBP ruling is wider than you might think. I had an umpire not award a HBP to a batter struck in the back while in the batter's box even though she moved, her movements were backwards (towards backstop) and rotating which umpire felt wasn't a good enough attempt to avoid being hit.

If a player turns their back to a pitch and in doing so puts their back outside the batters box and into a pitch, that's different. IMO There NEVER should be a ruling about avoiding the pitch when the pitch enters the batters box.

Personally, I really don't care where the batter is facing. I am not suggesting umpires ignore the HBP, maybe this umpire just blew it. Or maybe the umpire saw something that gave him/her cause to believe the player was trying to get hit. I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'm simply saying that if IMO the batter was trying to get hit, I do not care where the ball was, that batter isn't going to 1B.

With the "ball doesn't belong in the batter's box" logic, than a batter should never be awarded a base if it by a ball out of the BB whether they try to avoid or not, right?

[3SPORT]

If a hitter is struck by a pitch while in the batter’s box, she will be awarded first base regardless if she tried to avoid being struck by the ball. Previously, the umpire had to judge whether the batter in the box tried to avoid being hit by the pitch. The umpire still can keep the batter in the box if, in his/her judgment, the batter initiated the contact by trying to get hit by the pitch.
Anybody think this wasn't a coach's idea?

I believe this was submitted by the SUIP and not coach's. It was not voted in and will not be in the 2010 rule book.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

I believe this was submitted by the SUIP and not coach's. It was not voted in and will not be in the 2010 rule book.

I believe it was a proposal submitted by the NCAA rules committee (which is comprised of coaches and institutional administrators)...but subsequently not approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversite Panel. So it won't be in the 2010 rule book.

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Personally, I really don't care where the batter is facing. I am not suggesting umpires ignore the HBP, maybe this umpire just blew it. Or maybe the umpire saw something that gave him/her cause to believe the player was trying to get hit. I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'm simply saying that if IMO the batter was trying to get hit, I do not care where the ball was, that batter isn't going to 1B.

With the "ball doesn't belong in the batter's box" logic, than a batter should never be awarded a base if it by a ball out of the BB whether they try to avoid or not, right?

I'd rather see the error made in that direction. Far as I'm concerned that should be a pretty big strike zone if a player is hit anywhere near the plate. I agree this one ump blew it. Girl wasn't set up toes on the line leaning over the plate she got hit in the middle of the batters box. In umpires opinion ( and I think current rule supports this ) whether she was trying to get hit or not is not the threshhold, the rule is whether she tried to avoid getting hit and in his opinions, turning away protecting her face (which is the one place you can get hit now that doesn't hurt thanks to facemasks) wasn't attempting to avoid. Maybe there is some compromise. I'd be happy if they changed the rule to "Player cannot move with the intent to get hit"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

I'd rather see the error made in that direction. Far as I'm concerned that should be a pretty big strike zone if a player is hit anywhere near the plate. I agree this one ump blew it. Girl wasn't set up toes on the line leaning over the plate she got hit in the middle of the batters box. In umpires opinion ( and I think current rule supports this ) whether she was trying to get hit or not is not the threshhold, the rule is whether she tried to avoid getting hit and in his opinions, turning away protecting her face (which is the one place you can get hit now that doesn't hurt thanks to facemasks) wasn't attempting to avoid. Maybe there is some compromise. I'd be happy if they changed the rule to "Player cannot move with the intent to get hit"

Even then, it is still going to come back to the present detemination, the umpire's judgment. The sad part it is always going to be controversial if the umpire does not award the base.

Remember Ron Hunt?

Hit by Pitch Single Season National League Leaders on Baseball Almanac

He was one of many players who made a career by getting HBP. However, the umpires would not hold him in the box after getting hit even though his antics were almost a running joke around baseball.