Hbp

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Call me a simple old man...but if the pitch is not where it is supposed to be (in the box), and the batter IS.... she should not have to get out of the way. The elbows hanging out over the plate are a little different.

Flawed logic. There is no rule stating a pitch cannot be thrown over the batter's box. But if the batter doesn't need to move when the ball is in the BB, why can you have CO if the catcher is attempting to receive the ball in the BB?

If the ball "isn't supposed to be there", then the batter shouldn't be able to hit the ball that is over the BB.

As a batter, common sense would tell one to avoid the sphere coming at you and that is not happening in the NCAA game.

Aahhh, WTF, let's just put up a screen in front of the batter and anytime the pitch hits it, the batter is awarded 1B

Then again, this is how the rule should probably read:

A pitched ball, not struck at, which touches any part of the batter's person or clothing, while standing in his position, provided the batter does not intentionally allow the ball to strike him.

Of course, now some idiot is going to say you cannot "know" intent. Well, if you are a good umpire, you can tell the difference between getting hit by the pitch and allowing the pitch to hit you. And yes, the batter should get the benefit of any doubt.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then again, this is how the rule should probably read:

A pitched ball, not struck at, which touches any part of the batter's person or clothing, while standing in his position, provided the batter does not intentionally allow the ball to strike him.

Standing in his/her position is a bit narrow, need to allow for avoidance moves, etc.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The problem is the wording of the ASA rule. If a batter freezes because a ball is coming at her at 65 mph, ASA's rule says she doesn't get first. The interpretation would have to be that she does though because not all batters can in fact get out of the way. If you couldn't get out of the way as an umpire, how the hell is a batter to get out of the way? As written, the ASA doesn't permit common sense to be applied.

You'll certainly get into more trouble leaving hit batters in the batter's box then giving them first base.

Common sense certainly is not being applied based on the rule in NCAA, NFHS and any other rule set that followed. Way to many HBP that are either strikes or not in the batters box that the batters are just standing there taking, leaning into or hanging their armored elbows into. And, if you think the ASA rule is poorly written these other associations rules are equally as poorly written. All you ever hear from coaches and even umpires in general is that no attempt to avoid is required and that simply is not true. An attempt is required to avoid, unless the ball is ENTIRELY within the batters box.

[Dakota]

Funny, I never had a problem interpreting the ASA rule nor in applying it. I realize some one or two of you are anti-ASA in the extreme, but that does not mean the ASA rule does not allow for a proper application of the rule. It is the NCAA rule that has taken leave of common sense, IMO. And, I think the way the teams are taking advantage of the rule bears this out.

[Andy]

My feeling is that people are making this way too hard.

Why should the batter have to compensate for the pitcher throwing the ball where it shouldn't be?

The intent of the rule change was just that, but adding the verbiage about "entirely in the batter's box" caused some people to nitpick this to death.

The rule should simply read: If the batter is hit by a pitch NOT IN THE STRIKE ZONE, the batter is awarded first base.

As far as the batters crowding the plate...if the pitched ball doesn't hit her, there is very little room left for it NOT to be a strike......

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by Andy

My feeling is that people are making this way too hard.

Why should the batter have to compensate for the pitcher throwing the ball where it shouldn't be?

The intent of the rule change was just that, but adding the verbiage about "entirely in the batter's box" caused some people to nitpick this to death.

The rule should simply read: If the batter is hit by a pitch NOT IN THE STRIKE ZONE, the batter is awarded first base.

As far as the batters crowding the plate...if the pitched ball doesn't hit her, there is very little room left for it NOT to be a strike......

Seems like simple genius to me....

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Andy

My feeling is that people are making this way too hard.

Why should the batter have to compensate for the pitcher throwing the ball where it shouldn't be?

The intent of the rule change was just that, but adding the verbiage about "entirely in the batter's box" caused some people to nitpick this to death.

The rule should simply read: If the batter is hit by a pitch NOT IN THE STRIKE ZONE, the batter is awarded first base.

As far as the batters crowding the plate...if the pitched ball doesn't hit her, there is very little room left for it NOT to be a strike......

So, Andy, in your rule verbiage, if a batter puts her elbow over the plate, and the pitch hits her elbow over the plate, but the pitch is too high to be a strike, you propose that should be an awarded base? Or kicks her foot out on a low pitch over the plate? High and low pitches are also where it shouldn't be, so anything but a strike is fair game to get a base award?

Just wanting to fully understand your position.

[chapmaja]

My opinion on this is simple. I feel there are two "zones" in which the players get. The first zone is the batters box. This is the batter's space. The second zone is the area from the inside line of the batter's box, across home plate and into the opposite batters box. This is the pitchers zone.

The rule should be simple. A pitched ball that strikes a batter in the batters box shall be ruled a HBP. A pitched ball that strikes a batter outside the of the batters box shall be ruled a dead ball and a strike or ball shall be awarded based on the location of the ball in relation to the strike zone.

There are only three things for an umpire to judge. Was the ball in the batters box or outside the batters box. Was the ball a strike or ball. Did the batter attempt to make contact with the pitched ball by swing or bunt attempt.

This rule would clearly define the space for each player and hopefully would eliminate the batters crowding the plate looking to get hit by a pitch. This also should not be a difficult call to make as the umpire should have a great view as to the location of the ball relative to the inside edge of the batters box. This rule also would eliminate the judgment of "did the batter attempt to avoid being hit by the ball?"

[Andy]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, Andy, in your rule verbiage, if a batter puts her elbow over the plate, and the pitch hits her elbow over the plate, but the pitch is too high to be a strike, you propose that should be an awarded base? Or kicks her foot out on a low pitch over the plate? High and low pitches are also where it shouldn't be, so anything but a strike is fair game to get a base award?

Just wanting to fully understand your position.

I probably oversimplified somewhat...

I believe the intent of the rule change a few years back was simply to remove the requirement of the batter making an attempt to avoid the pitched ball. All other aspects of the rule should stay in place. So, no, a batter may not purposely try to be hit by the pitch.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The batter is allowed to move while the pitch is in flight.

Way to miss the point, buddy.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Common sense certainly is not being applied based on the rule in NCAA, NFHS and any other rule set that followed. Way to many HBP that are either strikes or not in the batters box that the batters are just standing there taking, leaning into or hanging their armored elbows into. And, if you think the ASA rule is poorly written these other associations rules are equally as poorly written. All you ever hear from coaches and even umpires in general is that no attempt to avoid is required and that simply is not true. An attempt is required to avoid, unless the ball is ENTIRELY within the batters box.

That has 0% to do with common sense. It has a 100% to do with rules knowledge and judgment. Don't confuse them.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Way to miss the point, buddy.

Sorry, tangents only allowed in geometry, I guess.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Standing in his/her position is a bit narrow, need to allow for avoidance moves, etc.

I didn't write is. That was the rule in 1936

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

My opinion on this is simple. I feel there are two "zones" in which the players get. The first zone is the batters box. This is the batter's space. The second zone is the area from the inside line of the batter's box, across home plate and into the opposite batters box. This is the pitchers zone.

The rule should be simple. A pitched ball that strikes a batter in the batters box shall be ruled a HBP. A pitched ball that strikes a batter outside the of the batters box shall be ruled a dead ball and a strike or ball shall be awarded based on the location of the ball in relation to the strike zone.

There are only three things for an umpire to judge. Was the ball in the batters box or outside the batters box. Was the ball a strike or ball. Did the batter attempt to make contact with the pitched ball by swing or bunt attempt.

This rule would clearly define the space for each player and hopefully would eliminate the batters crowding the plate looking to get hit by a pitch. This also should not be a difficult call to make as the umpire should have a great view as to the location of the ball relative to the inside edge of the batters box. This rule also would eliminate the judgment of "did the batter attempt to avoid being hit by the ball?"

In that case, the batter should not be allowed to hit a pitch that is in the BB, right?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Standing in his/her position is a bit narrow, need to allow for avoidance moves, etc.

Not intentionally allowing the ball to hit him does cover avoidance.