Proposed NCAA Rule Changes

[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!