Swing on IBB - strike?

[grayhawk]

Last night at the Southern California Little League State Championship, the defense was issuing an intentional base on balls to B1. In Little League, F1 must actually throw the pitches on an IBB. After 3 pitches, OC tells his batter to swing which would increase the pitcher's pitch count by one. 4th pitch comes in about 4 feet outside and about a foot above the batter's head. Batter swings the bat, but makes no effort whatsoever to contact the pitch. It looked more like a practice swing with the barrel at the knees.

Initially, PU awards B1 first on the walk. OC asks why it wasn't a strike since his batter swung. PU conferences with his crew and they decide to add a strike to the count and bring B1 back to the plate. Next pitch is not swung at and B1 is awarded first.

Definition of a strike:

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—

(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed

The question being, was the pitch "struck at" by the batter merely because he swung his bat with obviously no intention of hitting it? We judge all the time whether or not a batter offered at a pitch on a check swing or half swing. Is there room for umpire judgment on this play as well?

[BRUMP]

my initial reaction would be that this could fall under gamesmanship and even unsportsmanlike conduct. Im assuming the pitcher was close to the pitch limit right? So I would rule it a ball. I would view it the same way as if a LL kid simulates a swing when he gets out of the way of a pitch..if there is no intent to hit the ball i give him 1st on the IBB

[NFUA_44]

Read your definition of a strike again, the answer is right there. His intent matters not one bit in this and it's not a judgment, it's a fact, he swung the bat. It doesn't say that he has to have what we consider to be a "chance" to hit it, simply that he swung at it, which he did. You can't rule anything, it's a strike. The important part to understand here is that this isn't a judgment to be made. Ask yourself this. If that pitcher threw a IBB pitch that was a little to close to the plate, and the batter drilled into the gap, would you be able to use your "judgment" to bring the batter back into the box, because he didn't have intent?

Is it gamesmanship? Well maybe it is, they are playing a game, but there is nothing unsporting about it. LL instituted pitch counts for specific reasons related to protecting kids arms, don't think for a minute that smart coaches won't figure out ways to make it work in their favor. That makes them a smart coach, not a poor sport. And just for the record, I'm an umpire, always have been, always will be, I respect good coaches, and manage all the others.

[ukce1861]

Pretty dumb call by the PU. I mean, you either gotta have the stones to live with this call (wrong though I think it is) or you don't call it. It's obvious to everyone what's going on when the kid swings at the Intentional Ball. If you're going to call it a ball, you have to be prepared to defend that ball call to the death. This way, he just looks weak and stupid.

[JaxRolo]

I agree with NFUA. No judgement here. He swung the bat. Its a strike!

[BRUMP]

why don't they just save us all the trouble and adopt the FED IBB?

[grayhawk]

Read your definition of a strike again, the answer is right there. His intent matters not one bit in this and it's not a judgment, it's a fact, he swung the bat. It doesn't say that he has to have what we consider to be a "chance" to hit it, simply that he swung at it, which he did. You can't rule anything, it's a strike. The important part to understand here is that this isn't a judgment to be made. Ask yourself this. If that pitcher threw a IBB pitch that was a little to close to the plate, and the batter drilled into the gap, would you be able to use your "judgment" to bring the batter back into the box, because he didn't have intent?

No offense, but your example doesn't apply. In that case, it's obvious to grandma in the last row that he had intent - he drilled the pitch! In the case last night, it was also obvious to grandma in the last row that he had no intention whatsoever of hitting the pitch. It was a cursory swing, at best, and the pitch was several feet away from him. Read the definition again - a stike is a pitch that is "struck at" by the batter and missed. In no way did he "strike at" the pitch.

Is it gamesmanship? Well maybe it is, they are playing a game, but there is nothing unsporting about it. LL instituted pitch counts for specific reasons related to protecting kids arms, don't think for a minute that smart coaches won't figure out ways to make it work in their favor. That makes them a smart coach, not a poor sport. And just for the record, I'm an umpire, always have been, always will be, I respect good coaches, and manage all the others.

I agree with this 100%.

[grayhawk]

Pretty dumb call by the PU. I mean, you either gotta have the stones to live with this call (wrong though I think it is) or you don't call it. It's obvious to everyone what's going on when the kid swings at the Intentional Ball. If you're going to call it a ball, you have to be prepared to defend that ball call to the death. This way, he just looks weak and stupid.

Let me clarify something. I don't know if PU even saw the swing. It was such an afterthought by the batter, and was also late (which I neglected to mention), so PU may have just not seen it.

Also, I know him and he is an excellent umpire and I assure you he didn't look weak or stupid.

[carolinablue]

Well, the coaches will learn to use what they can to their advantage. In this case LL has a pitch count rule ( which is good ) and they also require the IBB pitches to be thrown thus giving the offense an oppurtunity to add a pitch or two extra to the pitch count. I see nothing unsporting about it. If I'm the offense I see it as a way to make them pay a little bit for taking the bat out of my batters hand. I'm sure it was one of their better hitters.

As an umpire I would not even consider calling it a ball.

[Jocko]

I don't understand the question..... Did he swing the bat? Hell yes it's a strike. Strategy and management be damned. He swung the f***ing bat and y'all want to call it a ball????? SERIOUSLY??????? :

[Rich Ives]

I expect it be called a strike - no matter which half of the inning I'm in at the moment. That's part of the game.

If you can fake an IBB to strike Bench out then the other shoe has to be worn also.

[scrounge]

Yea, he prob had no intention of hitting the ball. Yea, it's gamesmanship and very well may be bush. But unless the ball is clearly and unmistakeably already in the catcher's glove, you have to call it a strike. You may "know" but you don't actually, definitively, PROVEABLY know.

[RichMSN]

I expect it be called a strike - no matter which half of the inning I'm in at the moment. That's part of the game.

If you can fake an IBB to strike Bench out then the other shoe has to be worn also.

I'm one of those crazy people who would definitely call "Ball 4" and let the chips fall where they may. I saw one of these this year. Pitch was to the far corner of LL's huge catcher's box and the batter waved the bat and didn't get within 10+ feet of the ball.

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls. :)

[KLAH316]

I expect it be called a strike - no matter which half of the inning I'm in at the moment. That's part of the game.

If you can fake an IBB to strike Bench out then the other shoe has to be worn also.

I'm one of those crazy people who would definitely call "Ball 4" and let the chips fall where they may. I saw one of these this year. Pitch was to the far corner of LL's huge catcher's box and the batter waved the bat and didn't get within 10+ feet of the ball.

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls.

How can you purposely call a Swing and a Miss a ball????

[RichMSN]

I expect it be called a strike - no matter which half of the inning I'm in at the moment. That's part of the game.

If you can fake an IBB to strike Bench out then the other shoe has to be worn also.

I'm one of those crazy people who would definitely call "Ball 4" and let the chips fall where they may. I saw one of these this year. Pitch was to the far corner of LL's huge catcher's box and the batter waved the bat and didn't get within 10+ feet of the ball.

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls.

How can you purposely call a Swing and a Miss a ball????

How can you wear that ghastly shirt (your avatar)?

----------------

Like this: "Ball 4."

(Less smart-ass response: 2.00 definition of Strike -- the batter never struck at a pitch. And this, as I mentioned earlier, is a pure judgment call. And in Little League I do *not* have to honor a check swing appeal request.)

Actually, it's never happened to me, not yet. I'll let you know when it does.

[KLAH316]

Wow Rich,

Just because you don't like the way a team is playing that happens to be completely within the rules, doesn't mean that you can change the rules on the fly to suit your belief.

There is alot of things that teams do that I don't nessesarlly agree with but as the Umpire, I have to be impartial and call the game based on the rules.

[KLAH316]

I expect it be called a strike - no matter which half of the inning I'm in at the moment. That's part of the game.

If you can fake an IBB to strike Bench out then the other shoe has to be worn also.

I'm one of those crazy people who would definitely call "Ball 4" and let the chips fall where they may. I saw one of these this year. Pitch was to the far corner of LL's huge catcher's box and the batter waved the bat and didn't get within 10+ feet of the ball.

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls.

How can you purposely call a Swing and a Miss a ball????

How can you wear that ghastly shirt (your avatar)?

That discussion is currently taking place in another thread!! :-)

[Dragon29]

I'm one of those crazy people who would definitely call "Ball 4" and let the chips fall where they may. I saw one of these this year. Pitch was to the far corner of LL's huge catcher's box and the batter waved the bat and didn't get within 10+ feet of the ball.

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls.

Yeah - sounds good, but all you got rules-wise to back you up is 4.16 (6) and that's really reaching! Like - to the moon reaching.

I'm not putting my reputation on the line simply because I think a manager's trying to get one or two more pitches out of the opposing F1. If LL doesn't want them to be able to do this, they should change the rule.

Strike!

[mstaylor]

4.15b is a possibility. If it is getting dark and they are doing this crap then sure, take care of it. It's also quite likely you don't see it because you have a catcher standing in front of you.

[Rich Ives]

You'd get the chance to protest this all the way to Williamsport and be told that balls and strikes are judgment calls.

My protest would say "The batter swung at the pitch but the umpire called it a ball because he said it was too far from the plate. Thus is a rule misapplication - not judgement. The batter swung - it should be called a srtrike by rule 2.00 Strike (a )"

Betcha I'd win.

[Rich Ives]

Like this: "Ball 4."

(Less smart-ass response: 2.00 definition of Strike -- the batter never struck at a pitch. And this, as I mentioned earlier, is a pure judgment call. And in Little League I do *not* have to honor a check swing appeal request.)

Really? Then if it wasn't a pitch it couldn't be a "ball" either.

[Rich Ives]

4.15b is a possibility. If it is getting dark and they are doing this crap then sure, take care of it. It's also quite likely you don't see it because you have a catcher standing in front of you.

Not you too Mike - I think you'd know better.

[mstaylor]

Situational ethics. Straight IBB, nothing, pushing dark or other curfew you have to weigh the sportsmanship involved in purposely lengthening the game. It may still be nothing but you have to consider it.

[RichMSN]

Rich, I'm too smart to lose a protest. I control my side of the conversation, after all. I'd never say more than, "He didn't offer." And when you tried to get me to say more, I wouldn't. Good luck with that.

Little League has in it's pledge, "I will play fair." Any coach that pulls this crap in a Little League game is a rat, pure and simple.

[basejester]

Read your definition of a strike again, the answer is right there. His intent matters not one bit in this and it's not a judgment, it's a fact, he swung the bat. It doesn't say that he has to have what we consider to be a "chance" to hit it, simply that he swung at it, which he did. You can't rule anything, it's a strike.

I disagree. The batter can't strike at a pitch without intent. It's the same logic that tells us the batter swinging the bat through the zone while the pitcher is getting the sign isn't a strike.