new Federation hit batter rule?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Bret, I can only give you the NCAA interpretation, and know the intent of NFHS is/was to match that interpretation.

Remaining in her spot in the batter's box, or only turning so that she is hit in less painful spot does not meet the exception of "deliberately". If the batter moves and is hit in a place she would NOT have been hit had she not moved (generally toward or closer to the plate, not toward the pitcher, but also possibly dropping an elbow or hand), THEN you should apply the "deliberately" exception.

Kind of similar to "actively" hindering while in the batter's box.

Agree. But I can see where Bret is coming from. NFHS should have been more clear with their intent. Instead of saying, "the batter may not obviously try to get hit by the pitch," they should have said, "the batter may not move into the path of the pitch to get deliberately hit by the ball," or words to that effect.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

But I think the original rule said that.

Joel

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Bret, I can only give you the NCAA interpretation, and know the intent of NFHS is/was to match that interpretation.

Remaining in her spot in the batter's box, or only turning so that she is hit in less painful spot does not meet the exception of "deliberately". If the batter moves and is hit in a place she would NOT have been hit had she not moved (generally toward or closer to the plate, not toward the pitcher, but also possibly dropping an elbow or hand), THEN you should apply the "deliberately" exception.

Kind of similar to "actively" hindering while in the batter's box.

I can buy that...but have not yet had the rule presented to me in those terms by any of our NFHS "higher-ups". But the season is young and our meetings will stsrt in a couple of weeks...

FED does seem to have a knack for taking simple rules, even rules that have served us well for decades, and changing them so that they are "better", then writing them in a less-than-optimal fashion that can leave us guessing at how they should be interpreted.

Then, often, their follow-up interpretations can cause more confusion than they are trying to clear up. Case in point- the printed interpretations from a couple of years ago that were used to clarify when a runner is penalized for continuing to run after being declared out (interference). While the rule in the rule book is geared toward retired runners (as opposed to retired batter-runners or retired batters), they chose to illustrate the new rule with an uncaught third strike play, thus mixing in several elements from several different rules.

The "take away" that many umpires and coaches seemed to get from that was that anytime a retired batter runs toward first base after striking out, when she is not entitled to advance, it should automatically be interference. And they would justify that assumption by saying that "it's a new rule" and pointing to the printed interpretation as their "proof".

Along the same lines, we have the recent "bunt attempt" rule change. That rule says that "holding the bat in the strike zone is an attempt". Okay...so what if the batter squares to bunt, but holds the bat out over the plate at shoulder height. If she does not withdraw the bat, is that a bunt attempt? Not by a strict reading of the rule- the bat was not held in the strike zone.

Same with a batter who is moved up in the box. If she squares to bunt, she could be holding the bat straight out in front of the plate. That is not in the strike zone. Is that an offer?

Only the FED knows for sure!

[CecilOne]

I hope these are not too simple.

The batter is awarded 1st base if struck by a pitch
- which the batter did not prevent from entering the strike zone and
- which the batter did not deliberately cause to hit her/him.

The pitcher must pause after taking the position on the pitching plate before starting the pitching motion.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Ya ever wonder why there always seems to be a rush to change rules that have worked for decades, yet when someone finds a hole in a rule or technology advances the game to an unsafe level, those in charge take a few years to ponder the effect of a change.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And it helped Michigan beat Louisville in the regionals last year when Caitlin Blanchard seemed to have raised her arm into the path of a pitch with bases loaded to score the winning run against Louisville.

I'm all for hit batsmen being awarded 1B, but sometimes it can just get ridiculous.

You're right!
I do remember seeing that play on the ESPN telecast.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by BretMan

[...]

Along the same lines, we have the recent "bunt attempt" rule change. That rule says that "holding the bat in the strike zone is an attempt". Okay...so what if the batter squares to bunt, but holds the bat out over the plate at shoulder height. If she does not withdraw the bat, is that a bunt attempt? Not by a strict reading of the rule- the bat was not held in the strike zone.

Same with a batter who is moved up in the box. If she squares to bunt, she could be holding the bat straight out in front of the plate. That is not in the strike zone. Is that an offer?

Only the FED knows for sure!

They seem to want taking a bunting stance as constituting the attempt. The prism known as the strike zone shall not enter into it. Go figure.

[blue06]

Does anyone have a copy for guide?

[Tex]

Here are two NFHS online test questions concerning this subject:

18) A batter obviously moves a body part to get hit by a pitch that is within the batter's box. The batter is awarded first base. True or False

19) A pitched ball hits a batter within the batter's box and the batter makes no attempt to avoid being hit. The batter is awarded first base. True or False

I believe 18) is False and 19) is True

What do others have?

Sorry, I couldn't get the ball link to disapear.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here are two NFHS online test questions concerning this subject:

18) A batter obviously moves a body part to get hit by a pitch that is within the batter's box. The batter is awarded first base. True or False

19) A pitched ball hits a batter within the batter's box and the batter makes no attempt to avoid being hit. The batter is awarded first base. True or False

I believe 18) is False and 19) is True

What do others have?

Sorry, I couldn't get the ball link to disapear.

Those should be the correct answers. The batter does not have to attempt to avoid the pitch which would make 19 True. However, the batter may not make an attempt to purposely get hit by the pitch making 18 False

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Along the same lines, we have the recent "bunt attempt" rule change. That rule says that "holding the bat in the strike zone is an attempt". Okay...so what if the batter squares to bunt, but holds the bat out over the plate at shoulder height. If she does not withdraw the bat, is that a bunt attempt? Not by a strict reading of the rule- the bat was not held in the strike zone.

Even better, a pitch that goes over the backstop when the batter squares to bunt. I want to be there when an umpire rules that a strike when the batter freezes in position with the bat across the plate watching the ball sail 20' over her head