My first post back.

[3afan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But I believe you were saying the game being played was........

yes the original post did say ASA ...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sure.

I think the default is award the base. I'm not awarding the base only in cases where it's OBVIOUS that the batter (including whatever information I have that is relevant - speed of pitch, ability/age of batter, did the ball bounce, etc) intentionally failed to avoid the pitch. Freezing in fear or tensing to absorb the hit (as a lot of the younger ones will do) is not intentionally failing to avoid the pitch. Seeing the ball coming in, relaxing and watching it plunk your ankle IS - no base. Leaning in to put an elbow or knee in the way of a ball that was not going to hit the batter IS - no base.

This happened Saturday - batter put her knee out to get hit. no base ... and no argument at all, not even from her own parents.

So the rules don't say "She was only doing what she's supposed to do" but the rules do say "take age into consideration when enforcing the rules"?

Just saying.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

So the rules don't say "She was only doing what she's supposed to do" but the rules do say "take age into consideration when enforcing the rules"?

Just saying.

No, they don't say either. The exact words are... "If no attempt is made to avoid being hit..." On the rare occasion that this is discussed at a clinic, a runner is generally responsible for avoiding the pitch IF SHE CAN. I cannot find a way to interpret that logically that doesn't include some sort of judgement as to the player's abilities (of which age/experience is a part)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, they don't say either. The exact words are... "If no attempt is made to avoid being hit..." On the rare occasion that this is discussed at a clinic, a runner is generally responsible for avoiding the pitch IF SHE CAN. I cannot find a way to interpret that logically that doesn't include some sort of judgement as to the player's abilities (of which age/experience is a part)

Will you take player's ability into account when calling IFR? The rule says ordinary effort. Will you pass on enforcing the IFR because the players ability makes any catch of a infield fly more than ordinary effort?

I'm not disagreeing with you on the hit by pitch scenario by the way. At the younger ages I've been instructed that if they get hit by a pitch give them first base. I'm talking 10U here. At this age they are not looking to get hit by the pitch so they can get on base. Sometimes they get the dear in the head light look and don't know what to do.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you are using a phrase not in the book to help you enforce the rules, just like some of us use "she's doing what she is supposed to do" to help us with interference. Can this phrase get an umpire in trouble? Sure, if not used properly. But so can using the players ability. If not used appropriately it can lead an umpire down the wrong path.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

Will you take player's ability into account when calling IFR? The rule says ordinary effort. Will you pass on enforcing the IFR because the players ability makes any catch of a infield fly more than ordinary effort?

Absolutely.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the hit by pitch scenario by the way. At the younger ages I've been instructed that if they get hit by a pitch give them first base. I'm talking 10U here. At this age they are not looking to get hit by the pitch so they can get on base. Sometimes they get the dear in the head light look and don't know what to do.

Agreed.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you are using a phrase not in the book to help you enforce the rules, just like some of us use "she's doing what she is supposed to do" to help us with interference. Can this phrase get an umpire in trouble? Sure, if not used properly. But so can using the players ability. If not used appropriately it can lead an umpire down the wrong path.

I'm sure I use a BUNCH of phrases that don't happen to be in the rulebook when describing a rule to someone. More often to a non-umpire in all likelihood. However, you've kind of hit the nail on the head with the reason why "she's just doing what she's supposed to do" is a bad catch-phrase. It's as often false as true - and more often than not (not by you, at least not that I've seen) used as a crutch by someone who doesn't know the rule. Sometimes his ruling is right, but he's got no idea WHY he's right (and, well, he's often wrong too). You just said the phrase can get an umpire in trouble. So why use it? (And, to note, it was incorrect when used in both this thread and the other one last week!).

I don't use the phrase "using the players ability" either - but in both rules where you've referenced it (probably more in IFF, actually, than the OP) it's true. I would NEVER use the phrase in explaining the ruling on the field or even here. Just as we shouldn't use the other one... a crutch that allows umpires to think they are ruling correctly when they aren't is a bad crutch and a bad habit.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Turning to avoid a pitch is common, and Ron Hunt made a carrier out of doing so on almost every pitch with which he was hit.

But as noted earlier, turning into the pitch (an in my opinion regardless of age/level) is not so easy to determine and is taught. This is a motion often used by the above mentioned MLBer and often argued about by the coach of the opposing team. And it was like an inside joke.

I understand a batter being frozen by a pitch, but even though they cannot move quick enough to avoid the pitch, they tend to flinch before contact.

This is one of those things that, if intentional, you will see it and call it. If the batter's movements don't make you immediately come up with the call, I think you offer the base.