new Federation hit batter rule?

[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!