new Federation hit batter rule?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Andy

I always thought that the previous rule about the batter having to make an attempt to avoid being hit was bass-ackwards, anyway.

Why should the batter have to attempt to compensate for a defensive error?

I don't disagree with that. But now the pendulum has swung so far the other way that batters are chastised for avoiding when they can and do choose to protect their bodies.

I never had a problem with the freeze, or it being too late to decide. When in doubt, benefit of any doubt to the batter. But to stand in on a lollipop and be rewarded, or even a dribbler that hit the pitcher's hip and barely reached her foot; and get a base?

And now, that means take the rib shot, too. Be tough. Had time to turn away, but take it for the team. In practice, too, don't let the coach even see you consider to avoid the bruise when it doesn't mean anything.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't disagree with that. But now the pendulum has swung so far the other way that batters are chastised for avoiding when they can and do choose to protect their bodies.

I never had a problem with the freeze, or it being too late to decide. When in doubt, benefit of any doubt to the batter. But to stand in on a lollipop and be rewarded, or even a dribbler that hit the pitcher's hip and barely reached her foot; and get a base?

And now, that means take the rib shot, too. Be tough. Had time to turn away, but take it for the team. In practice, too, don't let the coach even see you consider to avoid the bruise when it doesn't mean anything.

I know you are a valued poster and have a lot of softball knowledge but it sounds like you have a personal issue with coaches on this one.

I think the real issue here was to take the judgement away from the umpire that does NOT award the base to a frozen batter that gets drilled with a curve that broke late and they froze because that umpire didn't judge the batter to have attempted to avoid being hit. And I have seen this more than once personally had a LONG discussion with those umpires about it but those umpires are out there, this rule removes their judgement on this situation.

Will this cause some to teach the players to 'take it for the team'? Sure it will some are win at all cost, but no matter what the incentive (scholorship, varsity letter, etc) every player has a choice to follow the coaches instructions or protect themselves. Every parent has a choice to let their child play for a coach that 'requires' them to risk injury by taking a pitch, or to say come on Suzy lets go home.

Personally I see this as a good thing that protects players. Nothing is different about the 'take it for the team' approach, last year the girl just needed to move a little bit and she still got the base, that movement might have caused them to twist and take the ball in the chest instead of letting it hit her arm.

So I see this as a good thing, not argueing your points but I see your issue as a coaches philosophy issue not a rule issue. As I said they can 'take one for the team' as the rule was.....this change just makes sure they are rewarded for it, instead of leaving it up to umpire judgement if they were good enough actresses to "attempt" to get out of the way.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I think the real issue here was to take the judgement away from the umpire that does NOT award the base to a frozen batter that gets drilled with a curve that broke late and they froze because that umpire didn't judge the batter to have attempted to avoid being hit. And I have seen this more than once personally had a LONG discussion with those umpires about it but those umpires are out there, this rule removes their judgement on this situation.

Which, I believe is the wrong way of taking care of the situation. Educating and training those umpires instead of taking away their requirement to judge is the better solution, in my opinion.

I give the batter the maximum benefit of the doubt. But when there is no doubt that the batter had ample time to avoid the pitch, she shouldn't be rewarded. So what if the previous rule still required the offense to compensate for a defensive error? There are plenty of rules out there that do that.

A runner, for example, is still required to avoid getting hit by a batted ball that gets by an infielder if there's another infielder in position to make a play. Should we change that rule to eliminate that compensation the offense must still give to a defensive error?

How about eliminating the rule on uncaught third strikes? If the offense makes the error (swinging and missing a pitch), the defense must still make the play to retire the offense. Should we now change the rule so that the catcher no longer has to retire the batter to compensate for her error?

Again, I'm only addressing the specific instance where a batter clearly lets the pitch hit her. Short of that, umpires should be trained to understand that the batter should be given her base. If they have that much trouble with their judgment here, then how does that speak of their judgment to call Balls/Strikes, Safes/Outs, and Fair/Foul?