Jump to content

Anyone see the LSU Army HBP


GPblue
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1859 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

So, intentionally get hit within the batters box is a ball, and unintentionally hit within the batters box is a hbp?

No. Intentionally getting hit is always a strike. Freezing when the pitch is clearly within the batters box is not considered moving into the pitch. See above post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

No. Intentionally getting hit is always a strike. Freezing when the pitch is clearly within the batters box is not considered moving into the pitch. See above post.

Thanks. Just didn't want to be too dumbfounded when I see it this year at a game.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dumbdumb said:

So, intentionally get hit within the batters box is a ball, and unintentionally hit within the batters box is a hbp?

No. Intentionally getting hit is now a strike inside or outside the batter's box.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 12:03 PM, Jimurray said:

I think the "or" phrase applied here: "a) If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or if the
batter moves to intentionally get hit or freezes to allow a pitch that is
not within the batter's box to hit him
, the ball is dead, it shall be called
a strike and the batter is not awarded first base."

I hate this language.

FIrst:

Where is the batter standing, when he's waiting for a pitch, that would afford him to "freeze" to allow himself to get hit by a pitch that's neither in the batter's box, nor the strike zone?   He's not going to be beside the catcher, out the back of the box, nor is he going to be outside and beside the box when the pitch is delivered.   So, did they really put in this provision to deal with the batter's elbows or knees being in that six inch gap between the plate and the box?   50% of the time the ball is over a piece of the batter's box and 50% of the time it's over a piece of the plate (yeah, I know the ball is slightly less than 3 inches in diameter, but come on)...just call it a strike or don't.  Even if you called every one a strike for being in the zone you're never "wrong" by more than the width of the ball.

They're not really worried about a player who not only bats with his head over the plate (out of the box, and out of the strike zone), who then also freezes to let the pitch him in the face, are they?

Second:

It looks to me like this now allows a batter to make no attempt to avoid being hit if the pitch is within the box.  Or is this covered elsewhere?   ie.  Can a batter still be awarded a ball but not first base, if the ump rules he allowed himself to be hit by a pitch within the box?

Effectively - the rule seems to have changed an umpire's judgment from "did he try to get out of the way" to "did he try to get hit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I hate this language.

FIrst:

Where is the batter standing, when he's waiting for a pitch, that would afford him to "freeze" to allow himself to get hit by a pitch that's neither in the batter's box, nor the strike zone?   He's not going to be beside the catcher, out the back of the box, nor is he going to be outside and beside the box when the pitch is delivered.   So, did they really put in this provision to deal with the batter's elbows or knees or being in that six inch gap between the plate and the box?   50% of the time the ball is over a piece of the batter's box and 50% of the time it's over a piece of the plate (yeah, I know the ball is slightly less than 3 inches in diameter, but come on)...just call it a strike or don't.  Even if you called every one a strike for being in the zone you're never "wrong" by more than the width of the ball.

They're not really worried about a player who not only bats with his head over the plate (out of the box, and out of the strike zone), who then also freezes to let the pitch him in the face, are they?

Second:

It looks to me like this now allows a batter to make no attempt to avoid being hit if the pitch is within the box.  Or is this covered elsewhere?   ie.  Can a batter still be awarded a ball but not first base?

Effectively - the rule seems to have changed an umpire's judgment from "did he try to get out of the way" to "did he try to get hit".

From the horses mouth: 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it - I still think the piece I highlighted in red is (almost) redundant and can cause confusion.  I can live with giving the batter first even if he allows himself to be hit with a really poor pitch - if anything, it's makes the ump's job easier.  Overall, I think judging whether the batter tried to get hit is easier than judging whether the batter didn't avoid getting hit (but could have).  But, IMO, after making this change to an easier judgment they have added another change for a more difficult judgment.

In reality, and practically speaking, the part he's talking about, where a pitcher should be able to pitch inside (ie. it's a "good" pitch, just not a strike) - about the batter freezing on a pitch inside the box vs outside the box is talking about excluding a very small area  - a very small range where the ball is over neither the plate nor the box.   In the end, it's just judgment anyway - and it's just as easy to judge in the strike zone or not compared to in the box or not.   

Considering the ump has to judge whether it's in the zone or not anyway - whether it misses the batter, whether the batter freezes and gets hit, whether the batter makes a legitimate attempt to avoid the pitch but still gets hit, the ump needs to judge whether or not it entered the zone.  If it's in the strike zone everything else is moot anyway.

But now?  If the batter freezes and gets hit the ump has to judge whether or not it entered the strike zone...and then, if it didn't, has to judge whether or not it entered the box, or actually entered the microscopic area that is neither the box nor the zone. 

I say "practically" - the batter isn't going to freeze and let the ball hit him in the face...and if he turns his head he hasn't "frozen".  The parts of the body he will let the pitch hit, that could be outside the box, are also going to be within the upper and lower levels of the zone...it's just whether or not the ball is over the plate.

Flush it - it's either a strike or it's not.  I suspect that's how it's going to get called in practice anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...