Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Sign in to follow this  
coachump4

Batter catches the pitch

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, umpire_scott said:

I agree that if he did it more than once I would say something.  But if I were the defensive coach I would have a huge problem with a batter interfering with a pitch that had a chance at being called a strike if not for the batter interfering with it.  I would feel like a real tool if I explained to him "Sorry coach but unless it's a strike it's a ball, and since the ball never got to home plate it's not a strike.  If he does it again I'll warn or eject, but for this pitch it's a ball".

I'd rather be seen as a tool and have the rule book to back me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

From the BRD (2016 edition, section 83, p. 74): 

Play 65-83 NCAA and OBR only. A slow curve hits B1’s arm in front of the plate. B1 makes no attempt to avoid the pitch.  Ruling:  The ball is dead. If in the umpire’s judgment the pitch would have been a strike, it is called as such. In any case, B1 is not awarded first.

From the Wendelstedt Rules Interpretation Manual (section 8.1.2, p. 130):  If the batter is hit with a pitch and is not awarded first base, the following shall apply:

(a)     If the batter is hit in the strike zone, the ball is dead and a strike is added to the count;

(b)     If the batter intentionally attempts to be hit, or intentionally allows himself to be hit, the ball is dead and a strike or ball will be added to the count depending on where the pitch is in relation to the strike zone…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2016 at 10:44 PM, Senor Azul said:

From the BRD (2016 edition, section 83, p. 74): 

Play 65-83 NCAA and OBR only. A slow curve hits B1’s arm in front of the plate. B1 makes no attempt to avoid the pitch.  Ruling:  The ball is dead. If in the umpire’s judgment the pitch would have been a strike, it is called as such. In any case, B1 is not awarded first.

 

From the Wendelstedt Rules Interpretation Manual (section 8.1.2, p. 130):  If the batter is hit with a pitch and is not awarded first base, the following shall apply:

 

(a)     If the batter is hit in the strike zone, the ball is dead and a strike is added to the count;

 

(b)     If the batter intentionally attempts to be hit, or intentionally allows himself to be hit, the ball is dead and a strike or ball will be added to the count depending on where the pitch is in relation to the strike zone…

 

 

Thank you Senor Azul.  So there is interpretation verbiage to allow for a pitch that  "would have been a strike" to be called a strike if the batter intentionally interfered with the ball.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, umpire_scott said:

Thank you Senor Azul.  So there is interpretation verbiage to allow for a pitch that  "would have been a strike" to be called a strike if the batter intentionally interfered with the ball.  

Does it though? The way I read it says that if a batter interferes with a pitch, the ball is judged on its relation to the strike zone at the time of the interference. So a curveball that would have broke into the zone will be a ball if the batter interferes with it before it is actually in the zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LittleBlue said:

Does it though? The way I read it says that if a batter interferes with a pitch, the ball is judged on its relation to the strike zone at the time of the interference. So a curveball that would have broke into the zone will be a ball if the batter interferes with it before it is actually in the zone.

Play 65-83 NCAA and OBR only. A slow curve hits B1’s arm in front of the plate. B1 makes no attempt to avoid the pitch.  Ruling:  The ball is dead. If in the umpire’s judgment the pitch would have been a strike, it is called as such. In any case, B1 is not awarded first.

The underlined piece is the interpretation verbiage I'm speaking of.  It is speaking of a "slow curve" and say "would have been a strike".  It doesn't say "if in the umpire's judgement the pitch WAS a strike".  So to me this clearly indicated that when a batter interferes with a pitch intentionally before it gets to the plate then the umpire must determine whether it WOULD have been a strike or not.  And as far as I'm concerned I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the pitcher not the batter that purposely interfered.  Now if he caught a pitch that was clearly a ball then it's a ball.  But if I believe it was breaking into the zone and the batter kept that from happening, then I believe calling that pitch a strike is supported by this interpretation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, umpire_scott said:

Play 65-83 NCAA and OBR only. A slow curve hits B1’s arm in front of the plate. B1 makes no attempt to avoid the pitch.  Ruling:  The ball is dead. If in the umpire’s judgment the pitch would have been a strike, it is called as such. In any case, B1 is not awarded first.

The underlined piece is the interpretation verbiage I'm speaking of.  It is speaking of a "slow curve" and say "would have been a strike".  It doesn't say "if in the umpire's judgement the pitch WAS a strike".  

That's Carl's opinion (unless there's more to the section of the BRD than has been copied here).  It's not any kind of official interp.

 

That said, I agree with it.  You are clearly NOT giving any kind of benefit of the doubt to someone who intentionally gets hit by a pitch in this manner.

 

(In other section, Carl inserts his opinion and I disagree with it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That's Carl's opinion (unless there's more to the section of the BRD than has been copied here).  It's not any kind of official interp.

That said, I agree with it.  You are clearly NOT giving any kind of benefit of the doubt to someone who intentionally gets hit by a pitch in this manner.

(In other section, Carl inserts his opinion and I disagree with it.)

My take exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, guys ... it's a "Don't do that."

A batter may not purposely catch a pitch with men on base.

There is no penalty, by rule, but it's obvious on several levels.

"Ball 4.  Dead Ball.  Take 1st.  Son, deflect it with your hand if need be, but don't do that again with men on base."

If he does it again, with a man or men on base, I'd likely eject him for ignoring an order to "Not do that again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • For the first time ever in 10 years was umpiring a "really bad" game where the score was 16-4 6th inning and bases loaded with 2 outs count was 3-2 and had a batter catch the pitch.  The pitch would had either went behind him or hit him.  I was the BU and the PU was a rookie that wasn't sure what to call.  We met and I had never seen it and really wasn't sure either.  We decided to call him out for interfering with a live pitch.  After conferring with more veteran umpires it was determined it should be called depending on where the ball was at and he should had been awarded 1st base.  I admit I screwed up but had never seen nothing like this before nor heard of anything like this before.  Has anyone had this situation before?

Nothing but ball 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×