new Federation hit batter rule?
 

So now in high school ball, a batter gets hit by a "floater" change up while in the box and makes no attempt to avoid it, we award her first base? Talk about taking one for the team. What's the rationale/reason for this?

The ball belongs over or near the plate. Not in the batter's box.

College been same rule for the last 3-4 years.

It was only just last season (2012) when that rule change (11.16) took effect in NCAA.

I assumed it had been earlier because college umps, at least around here had been calling it that way for some time longer.

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. :rolleyes:

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

Because the coaches decided it so......

They own the rules....... minuscule input from umpires....

Joel

It is a systematic effort to eliminate umpire judgment so the coaches can teach black and white.

1) When is a ball out of the strike zone ruled a strike without an attempt to actually contact the ball? When the coaches decided not pulling back from squaring to bunt became an attempt.

2) When did umpires need a rule allowing them to warn coaches or players for arguing balls and strikes, or any judgment? When the coaches decided they needed the protection of a required warning to know when they crossed the line with an umpire, so they CAN argue until then.

3) When did umpires need help knowing that batter CHOSE to be hit with a pitch; had time and opportunity to avoid, but "took it" for the awarded base? It had been taught forever; do it until you are caught, just like illegal pitches, leaving early on steal attempts, hindering runners on the base paths, and so on. Because the coaches want it black or white, it is now legal.

I believe I have posted the following here before. If your daughter came home with bruises, cracked ribs, broken bones, and it was because her boyfriend told her to do something, you would kick the crap out of that boyfriend. Yet, because a softball coach tells her "take it for the team", you think it okay?

Bad enough this was acceptable for college players; the mentality is they are being "paid" to play, so do what the coach says. And they are all athletes, we are told. (Not anyone's daughter, or girlfriend; not even to be thought of as women or children that a father/man might think should be protected from unnecessary injury and pain.) But the average high school "player"? And the middle school player (playing by high school rules on a "feeder" team)? My opinion; shame on the rules committee for thinking this is the right answer for the game.

No matter where the pitch belongs. :(

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.

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.

My point....but you put it better.......:cool::cool:

Joel

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?

Beyond the problems I have with the new hit batter rule, I may have a bigger problem with the way the rule will be written. I don't have my 2013 rule book yet- they're supposed to be on the way. The only "official" explanations I have of the new rule are those offered by the NFHS rule change memos.

From their memo last summer:

A batter will be awarded first base if “a pitched ball is entirely within the batter’s box and it strikes the batter or her clothing. No attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch is required; however, the batter may not obviously try to get hit by the pitch.

That last sentence would lead me to believe that we will still need to use some judgment on this call. The ball just being inside the batter's box alone should not automatically equal an awarded base.

And from the list of rule changes on their website:

8-1-2 PENALTY: Identified when a hit batter is awarded first base and that she may not deliberately allow the ball to touch her in the batter's box

Again, there is still a judgment to be made. Did the batter "deliberately allow the ball to touch her"?

Now we're back to square one. Isn't this the same judgment that we have always had to make? A batter that "freezes" and gets hit, because the ball is truly unavoidable, apparently did not "deliberately or obviously" allow the ball to hit her. She gets first base- same as in the past.

A 35 mph curveball that doesn't break, or the pitch slowly dribbling on the ground toward the batter, are easily avoidable pitches. If one of those hits the batter in the batter's box, because she chose to stand there like a statue, has she not "deliberately" allowed herself to be hit? At least from the rationale given in the memos, this batter should not be awarded first base.

I can hear it now. A batter lets an avoidable pitch hit her in the batter's box, we keep her at the plate because we judged that she "deliberately" allowed herself to be hit...and the coach has a fit, crying, "But it hit her in the box!".

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.

But I think the original rule said that.

Joel

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! :)

rewording
 

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.

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.

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

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.

2012 NCAA Softball Exam
 

Does anyone have a copy for guide?

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

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 :D