article in Referee magazine regarding a batter intentionally being HBP

Well, I suppose this is akin to learning to swim by jumping into the deep end of the pool but....

If the umpire says that it's a ball with a 2-2 count how can he call it something else with a 3-2 count?

To the best of my knowlege (limited) there isn't any precedent for the situation described so I don't have anything to refer to. However, I have always subscribed to the notion that all calls made follow the same path:
1) adjudge
2) interpret
3) apply
and when the coach comes out
4) explain
and I better get #4 right and try not to sound stupid doing it.

I figure I'm going to have a tough time explaining to the coach that on a 2-2 count it's just a ball but now that the count is 3-2 my judgement or interpretation changed and now his batter has interferred with the pitch or has become unsportsmanlike or now I think that the pitch is a strike or I should eject the batter.

My humble opinion is that, to be consistent, however the ump rules with a 2-2 count he needs to rule the same way with a 3-2 count.

Now, based on the scenario presented, if the ump rules that the pitch is always going to be called a ball, there will be a problem. This encourages the batter to not let the pitch get to the plate....and that's bad.

I would be leaning toward calling interference with the pitch by the batter and calling the batter out. Why? The batter is gaining (or trying to gain) an advantage not intended by the rules. The rules just say he can't permit the ball to hit him. Doesn't cover what to do if the ball doesn't reach the Zone.

That being said, this has never happened to me during a game and short of having an official ruling or interpretation to back me up I hope it never does. But it does pose interesting food for thought.

jmo, but it sound like the author is doing too writing with too little thinking

if he calls what he sees happen, has no problem

if he calls what theoreticly "might happen", "could possibly happen", or "is likely to happen" - it's gonna be a long season, esp for the teams he's working

but - I would like to be there when the PA guy announces his "do over" ruling

.

Pilsner I agree. That will be the last time the batter does that.

I just cant support a "do over"........Just doesnt seem baseball to me.....

Im searching mind if anything remotely like this has ever happended to me and I cant come up with anything..... I would lean towards interference on the batter and calling him out.... but I can also see some officials calling for ball 4........

Interested to hear what the official result was......

Just make a call : Strike or Ball ... no do-overs. Make the call and everybody lives with it... He's either out or on first.

I realize the whole thing might be hypothetical -

quote:

by pilsner: This encourages the batter to not let the pitch get to the plate....and that's bad.

help me out here, I've been tring to envision just how a batter would do this??
the only thing I could come up with is to smack it into CF.

& what's up with the pitcher?
if the hitter is leaning into pitches,
put a FB into his ribs, then request UIC (author) a "do over", then do it AGAIN!!


btw, a guy looking to put his elbow into a CB off the plate, could NOT handle a FB strike



.

Gee, I think this is prety simple. If the batter places himself in the strike zone and is hit, its still a strike. Interference on the batter would a be very appropriate call. If he stays where he belongs, next to home plate, and is hit, it's a ball or HBP depending on how some officials want to regard it. Either way, I don't see a reason to make this overly complicated. Call what you see THAT HAPPENED, and not what might have happened, or you expected to happen.

Last night in a high school game, I saw two batters hit, one in the foot with curve, and the other hit on arm with fastball. HP ump made them both stay at the plate and called the pitches balls because they didn't make an effort to get out of the way. They didn't get in the way of the pitch, just didn't move away from it.

Last spring my son threw a CB that was called a strike and it hit the batter on his back foot. The batter was given a base. The UMP said it was a strike but hit the batter. That was a 1st for me.
I have seen many hit batters not awarded bases for not making an attempt to get out of thye way. That is a tough call and very subjective.

Bee>,

Not that hard to do.

The front of the batter's box is 27 1/2 inches in front of the plate. Batter simply stands in the front portion of the box and leans his arm/elbow into the slow rolling curve ball before it reaches the plate.

That is the basis for the question in the original post, not what the pitcher should do to retaliate. By the way, there is a rule governing that.

Also, when you quoted me you only printed part of it. Don't mind if you draw from my posts but please don't draw out of context.

sorry about the context faux paux, I didn't notice

quote:

by fbv10: a curve that the batter intentionally turns his elbow into

exactly how does the UIC judge "intentionality"? a brain scan?

assuming the hitter rotated back (showed his back to the pitcher),
that would be judged an "effort to avoid" by any good ump beyond hs, & most good hs umps -
the exception being a guy needing to be the center of attention or wanting to write an article

watching college, if you're hit by a pitch that is not a strike, you're heading to 1B, PERIOD.
even an eye twich is seen as an attempt to avoid

the example seems like youth ball,
but a pitcher at any level who throws an inside CB when his batter is at the very front of the batter's box "dangling his elbow" should be ejected for "unsportsmanlike stupidity"

jmo

btw, we DID have "do overs" back in the day playing on the vacant lot down the street


.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Last spring my son threw a CB that was called a strike and it hit the batter on his back foot. The batter was given a base. The UMP said it was a strike but hit the batter. That was a 1st for me.
I have seen many hit batters not awarded bases for not making an attempt to get out of thye way. That is a tough call and very subjective.

Unfortunately, that umpire misinterpreted the rule. When a pitch hits a batter and is also ruled a strike, then the HBP penalty is ignored (NFHS 8.1.1d Exception). If it was a strike then he should have just conbtinued his at bat.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

by fbv10: a curve that the batter intentionally turns his elbow into

exactly how does the UIC judge "intentionality"?

We do our best, since the rulebook requires that we officiate intent in certain circumstances. Example: NFHS 7.1.4i "A batter is also out. . .when he intentionally deflects a foul ball which has a chance of becoming fair." As an umpire I know that as soon as i rule him out for intentionally deflecting the ball he's going to say that the ball spun into him and he was off balance and couldn't avoid it. As the official I have to judge intent on a routine basis. another example is in cases where a pitcher is throwing at a batter. If there is intent, I've got a lot bigger problem than if there isn't intent and he is just wild, but regardless of intent the pitcher will deny that he was head-hunting.

In the case in the example in the OP, the way i would judge intent is if the batter's first move was away from the ball (natural reaction to avoid being hbp) and his second reaction was to move toward the ball (concious mind choosing to do something that isn't his natural physical response).

All of that said, I still disagree with how the author advocates handling the situation. I just can't find any rulebook justification for a redo. I agree with piaa_ump it just doesn't seem like a baseball answer to me. (I can see Tom Hanks in my mind yelling, "There's no do-overs in baseball." at this umpire!)

I think I can justify ruling on the pitch as a ball or strike based on where it hit him and living with that (and if it is within about a ball's width of the zone I'd been calling, you better believe it will be a strike). Or I could see calling batter's interference based on NFHS rule 7.3.5a "A batter shall not interfere with a catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate" and 7.3.5c "A batter shall not interfere with a catcher's fielding or throwing by making any other movement which hinders action at home plate." I think those 2 rules give the umpire the authority to call interference if a batter chooses to be struck with a pitch that may become strike 3.

I also tried to come up with a situation where I remember anything like this occurring and couldn't. I have kept a batter at the plate on a good number of occasions for allowing a pitch to hit him, but this sort of shenanigan is usually seen early in the count and not on the 2-2/3-2 pitches. By that time, the batter is worried about the at bat enough that they aren't trying to play games like choosing to get hit by the pitch.

like I said:
"the exception being a guy needing to be the center of attention or wanting to write an article"

most guys would just handle it without trying to write a thesis on it

keep up the good work


.

This article has been the topic of discussion on several different umpire message boards the past few days.

NOBODY and I mean NOBODY I've read so far agrees with the "do-over"!!!!

If the batter leans over the strike zone and it hits him it is a STRIKE!!

If the batter gets hit by the pitch and he isn't over the strike zone it a hit by pitch and he is awarded first base!

Pretty simple really!

To All,

This has been a very thought provoking dilemma and indeed I have given it much thought.

Anything I write from here forward is my opinion. It is not intended to persuade anyone to agree with me or change their mind about how they would proceed if presented with this situation.

In the original post there are two key elements to remember:
1) The pitched ball was never in the strike zone nor had it passed through the strike zone. It only appeared to be on a path that would take it into the strike zone.
2) The batter intentionally moved into the path of the ball so that the ball would hit him.

For those who said that it is simply a strike or a ball let's consider both sides of it.

It is true that if the ball is in the strike zone (or has passed through it) when it contacts the batter it is a strike. But the ball was never in the strike zone and, unless I lie, I can't call a strike.

Therefore, if I proceed under the provisions of NFHS Rule 7-3-4 which states that a batter may not permit a pitched ball to touch him I must call a ball. (and the ball is dead) If it's ball 4, down to first base he goes. Under normal circumstances when we see this happen the pitch is well inside the plate and in the absense of the ball hitting the batter it would have been called a ball anyway. So we don't give it any thought.

OK, now we play "What if"?

What if this occurs in the 3rd inning with no runners on? The pitch is on the way to the zone but the batter moves into the pitch before it gets there and I rule a ball under Rule 7-3-4 and send the runner to first base.
Probably a little grousing from the defensive coach but we proceed.

My ruling hasn't disrupted the game but I have armed everyone with some valuable knowledge.

Move forward to the bottom of the last inning with the bases loaded and score tied. With a 3-2 count and the pitch coming right down broadway, the batter reaches out or sticks his arm or elbow in the way and intentionally prevents the ball from getting to the plate/strike zone. If I proceed as I did earlier (and to be consistent I must) the batter goes to first base and gets a game winning RBI.

In my opinion there is something inherently wrong with rewarding the batter for this action. And that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm also penalizing the defense when they did absolutely nothing wrong. That is why I said in my earlier post that it would be bad to call a ball. And that would be regardless of the count.

All of this considered is why I said I would be leaning toward calling interference and the batter out. I'm aware of the fact that I don't have any rule/interpretation to back me up but nothing else seems viable to me. Any other call would in effect reward the offense or penalize the defense and both of those choices, in my mind, are wrong.

OK, you can all beat me up now.

In pilsner's example I would award first but explain to him that a repeat will get him an exit. The problem is unless you call him out for interference then pilsner's second sitch he still wins. I had a catcher that would take a pitch in a minute. I left him in the box more than once but I never had to eject him.

I need to make a correction, the article was written by Phil Gawthrop of Northern Virginia or Maryland (bis bio wasn't specific) and it appeared in the Spring 2006 edition of Officials' Quarterly, not Referee Mag as I'd originally indicated.