HBP Strike 3 again

[BT_Blue]

I've only done two 3 inning scrimmages this season because of work. But I saw it a ton last season. And I expect to see it just as much this season. 

These same coaches that taught this stuff in the college game are running baseball schools and camps that are teaching it there to HS kids.

[Forest Ump]

12 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

I've only done two 3 inning scrimmages this season because of work. But I saw it a ton last season. And I expect to see it just as much this season. 

These same coaches that taught this stuff in the college game are running baseball schools and camps that are teaching it there to HS kids.

This is why I like the new college rule. It adds some teeth to the problem. Kid gets intentionally hit, not only does he stay in the box but he gets a strike. Plus coaches can not argue the call. A definite improvement in my opinion. I hope HS adopts the same rule.

[BT_Blue]

6 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

This is why I like the new college rule. It adds some teeth to the problem. Kid gets intentionally hit, not only does he stay in the box but he gets a strike. Plus coaches can not argue the call. A definite improvement in my opinion. I hope HS adopts the same rule.

I do also like that the coach and umpire have the option of replay on this where it is available.

As I said earlier... i would love to see this in HS. But i shudder at the interpretations we will get from different states and umpires! Let us not forget the new lodged ball interpretation. Yeh, that one. Where some states are ONLY allowing it on plays to first... that start with a ground ball to F1... that bounces no more than 2 times... but no less than 2 times.

It's a joke.

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

 

But i shudder at the interpretations we will get from different states and umpires! 

Herein lies FED’s problem. Like the dead ball balk rule, changing the HBP rule to mirror  the NCAA rule is probably not a good idea. I’ve read enough posts elsewhere from people who claim to understand the NCAA HBP rule. It’s scary. 

[BT_Blue]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

Herein lies FED’s problem. Like the dead ball balk rule, changing the HBP rule to mirror  the NCAA rule is probably not a good idea. I’ve read enough posts elsewhere from people who claim to understand the NCAA HBP rule. It’s scary. 

I had three or four HBPs in my HS plate game today. Two of them I remember were legit! One to the helmet and one square in the numbers. A third was one that was a heat seeking missile right for a batters calf. The fourth... that was the one I wanted the NCAA rule for!

Pitch just inside the white line of the box and a batter (in my mind) turning his shoulder with the intent to increase his profile to the pitch and get hit. I really wanted to go get this one. But in FED I didnt think I had enough "evidence" to keep the kid at the plate.

I feel if I had the NCAA rule this would have been an easy penalty strike call for me. In FED, I just give him the base.

[yawetag]

No, in FED you call a ball and leave him at the plate.

7-3-4: A batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him.

7.3.4.C: B1 is at bat with a three-ball, no strike count. The batter rolls his elbow into the strike zone and (a) the pitch hits B1 in the shoulder and would have been a ball. RULING: B1 is awarded first base as it was ball four.

 

You most definitely have the right to keep a batter at the plate in FED. Unfortunately, we have to call the pitch where it was (not an automatic strike like in NCAA).

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, yawetag said:

You most definitely have the right to keep a batter at the plate in FED.

Yep. I've done it. Coach has come out to argue every time, but (*shrug*) coaches can be wrong.

[beerguy55]

On 3/15/2019 at 6:13 PM, Richvee said:

You’re underestimating the “skills” these D1 kids have developed to make if look like they’re not trying to get hit. It’s an epidemic in college ball. Players are bragging at one another about how good they are at getting hit and not getting caught. It’s the coaches that wanted something done about it. It’s a good rule. Players will adjust and learn to stop the practice. 

I''m good with the rule, don't get me wrong.  (at least with the auto-strike part of the rule)

I just don't like the judgment call in this particular situation.   If the kids are now as good as you say at disguising their intent then making this call is nothing more than a coin flip...maybe even a "reputation" call, rather than what you actually witnessed.   I didn't see anything in this sequence to determine the kid moved into the pitch.  So, if he disguised it that well, then now I'm either guessing, or seeing what I want to see to justify the call.  ie. lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.   Now, the part I don't know if this kid has a long-standing reputation for getting hit by pitches.

[yawetag]

To the batter, It's a ball either way. If he sticks his leg out and gets hit, he's getting 1B; if he doesn't, it's a ball and he keeps batting. In the old rules, even getting hit meant nothing worse than a ball being added to the count.

The new rule makes this more a risk/reward. If he gets hit, there's a chance the umpire sees what he did and he gets penalized for it.

I have no doubt in my mind that the batter knew what he was doing.

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I''m good with the rule, don't get me wrong.  (at least with the auto-strike part of the rule)

I just don't like the judgment call in this particular situation.   If the kids are now as good as you say at disguising their intent then making this call is nothing more than a coin flip...maybe even a "reputation" call, rather than what you actually witnessed.   I didn't see anything in this sequence to determine the kid moved into the pitch.  So, if he disguised it that well, then now I'm either guessing, or seeing what I want to see to justify the call.  ie. lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.   Now, the part I don't know if this kid has a long-standing reputation for getting hit by pitches.

It’s subtle. Reminds me of trying to learn  what to look for on a good “knee pop” balk move. 

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, yawetag said:

The new rule makes this more a risk/reward. If he gets hit, there's a chance the umpire sees what he did and he gets penalized for it.

This is the part I don't like.  If the batter genuinely just braces for impact it could be misinterpreted as a move into the pitch.  Now, in the past where I've seen umpires make this determination (or mistake, if you will) at least the batter is getting a "ball" - sure, they're not getting their base, but at least they're not further penalized.   Now, the risk in your risk/reward scenario is involuntarily. 

It's one thing to intentionally enter a risk/reward scenario - to intentionally risk the strike in hopes of getting the base.  It's another thing to be put into that scenario by an involuntary reaction that occurs in about a quarter of a second.  Now you're risk/reward lies on what an ump sees, or thinks he sees...not what you actually did, or intended.

I understand the purpose of the rule, the reasoning behind it, and am mostly on board with it...my only concern is on the judgment side of the equation - I understand there will be subtleties that an experienced umpire will see that I won't. I'll ask you to understand that as a player who competed at this skill level, I've got a pretty good idea what can and can't be done at the plate.  In the end, I want it bigger than what's in this video.  Having said that, kudos to the umpire for coming up big, definitive and certain on his call.

I think there was one posted here a couple of weeks ago that was more in line with what I'm looking for.  Not necessarily blatantly obvious in real time...but certainly easier to defend.

[yawetag]

I think it's safe to say that umpires shy more on the "that wasn't intentional" side than shy on the "that was definitely intentional."

We're seeing two HBPs over hundreds (thousands by now?) games, probably most with some sort of HBP, and none of those getting posted here. Some of those may have even been borderline calls in which the PU didn't make the call - we aren't going to see those pop up as "OMG!!!! UMPIREZ SUK!" Twitter posts.

Of the two we've seen, we've got one that was a no-brainer and one that, given multiple angles, was a great call. I don't think an "involuntary reaction" is going to fool an NCAA umpire too easily. Coupling their judgment with the ability to review these calls, an umpire calling one that shouldn't have been called will be rare.

[beerguy55]

19 hours ago, yawetag said:

I think it's safe to say that umpires shy more on the "that wasn't intentional" side than shy on the "that was definitely intentional."

We're seeing two HBPs over hundreds (thousands by now?) games, probably most with some sort of HBP, and none of those getting posted here. Some of those may have even been borderline calls in which the PU didn't make the call - we aren't going to see those pop up as "OMG!!!! UMPIREZ SUK!" Twitter posts.

Of the two we've seen, we've got one that was a no-brainer and one that, given multiple angles, was a great call. I don't think an "involuntary reaction" is going to fool an NCAA umpire too easily. Coupling their judgment with the ability to review these calls, an umpire calling one that shouldn't have been called will be rare.

Maybe I'm wrong but I was suspecting that the new rule, and the new emphasis, was a factor in these calls - and that umpires may be a little more sensitive to it, or at least alert.  That is, my suspicion is that last year those two players would have just got their base...they wouldn't have even been given a "ball" call.   But maybe I'm overreacting and am seeing just a small sample of the big picture.

[Biscuit]

6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Maybe I'm wrong but I was suspecting that the new rule, and the new emphasis, was a factor in these calls - and that umpires may be a little more sensitive to it, or at least alert.  That is, my suspicion is that last year those two players would have just got their base...they wouldn't have even been given a "ball" call.   But maybe I'm overreacting and am seeing just a small sample of the big picture.

I agree on this one, but the other one we've seen was pretty obvious, and I hope he would've been kept at the plate.

[Replacematt]

On 3/17/2019 at 9:18 AM, BT_Blue said:

I had three or four HBPs in my HS plate game today. Two of them I remember were legit! One to the helmet and one square in the numbers. A third was one that was a heat seeking missile right for a batters calf. The fourth... that was the one I wanted the NCAA rule for!

Pitch just inside the white line of the box and a batter (in my mind) turning his shoulder with the intent to increase his profile to the pitch and get hit. I really wanted to go get this one. But in FED I didnt think I had enough "evidence" to keep the kid at the plate.

I feel if I had the NCAA rule this would have been an easy penalty strike call for me. In FED, I just give him the base.

If you wouldn't have kept him at the plate in FED, it almost certainly wouldn't have been enough for a strike in NCAA.

[beerguy55]

On 3/17/2019 at 12:18 AM, BT_Blue said:

Pitch just inside the white line of the box and a batter (in my mind) turning his shoulder with the intent to increase his profile to the pitch and get hit. I really wanted to go get this one. But in FED I didnt think I had enough "evidence" to keep the kid at the plate.

I feel if I had the NCAA rule this would have been an easy penalty strike call for me. In FED, I just give him the base

If you'd be willing to give him a strike in the new NCAA rules you should be willing to give him a ball (ie. keep him at the plate) in the current FED rules.