Swing on IBB - strike?

[JaxRolo]

Using post #100 to ask, .....

REALLY?

Ask of whom?

[JaxRolo]

Baseball strike

A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, doesn't swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught.

[grayhawk]

Baseball strike

A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, doesn't swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught.

Is that a quote from J/R (JAX/ROLO's new fangled bazeboll rulez)? That isn't the definition of a strike in OBR.

[JaxRolo]

Baseball strike

A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, doesn't swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught.

Is that a quote from J/R (JAX/ROLO's new fangled bazeboll rulez)? That isn't the definition of a strike in OBR.

Yeah people seemed to be making up their own rule on a swinging strike not being a strike. So I made up my own rule book.

My last post on this subject

[soapbox]

• So R1 is stealing. Fast kid. Not a hit and run, Coach says to batter swing thru pitch to hinder catchers throw. What do we have, BI? Do I have a ball because he purposely missed. I'm not judging a batters intention.
  

[umpire_scott]

• So R1 is stealing. Fast kid. Not a hit and run, Coach says to batter swing thru pitch to hinder catchers throw. What do we have, BI? Do I have a ball because he purposely missed. I'm not judging a batters intention.
  

I see what you are saying but when that is done the batter always reaches for the ball to cause as much of a distraction as they can. You have to try and visualize what the OP is talking about. The pitch was an IBB and the batter swung without even looking at the ball. He made no effort, stretch, lean or anything to attempt to reach the ball.

I want to say ahead of time that prior to this thread I would have always just called the strike on the swing without hesitation. But the wording "strike AT the ball" does give credence to what the OP and a few others have said. All that being said I don't think that the ruling should be made based on pitch counts. Either you conclude that "strike AT" means the batter had to be making a legitimate attempt at the ball or you don't. Unless I hear from a ruling committee of some sort I'm going to continue to call it a strike.

But to me the unreasonable ones on this thread are the ones that are failing to admit that the OP does have a solid argument.

[umpschool]

I didn't read through the entire topic, so this may have already been addressed. Though we don't deal with mandatory pitch counts, the most comparable situation I can think of is as follows:

Bottom of the ninth inning, score tied, 0-2 count. The next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. Recognizing that he could easily reach first base on an uncaught third strike, the batter "swings" at the pitch with no real attempt to hit it. In this situation, the umpire should not allow this. Batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

In the original situation presented, I don't think that I would apply the same scrutiny. If he swings at the pitch, whether an intentionally thrown ball or not, should be called a strike.

[JaxRolo]

Good answer and good examples!

[basejester]

Bottom of the ninth inning, score tied, 0-2 count. The next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. Recognizing that he could easily reach first base on an uncaught third strike, the batter "swings" at the pitch with no real attempt to hit it. In this situation, the umpire should not allow this. Batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

Is the ball being no longer in flight the defining difference for you?

[Jocko]

Good answer and good examples!

works for me. And that's all. I have to say. About that.

[grayhawk]

I didn't read through the entire topic, so this may have already been addressed. Though we don't deal with mandatory pitch counts, the most comparable situation I can think of is as follows:

Bottom of the ninth inning, score tied, 0-2 count. The next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. Recognizing that he could easily reach first base on an uncaught third strike, the batter "swings" at the pitch with no real attempt to hit it. In this situation, the umpire should not allow this. Batter remains at bat with a 1-2 count.

In the original situation presented, I don't think that I would apply the same scrutiny. If he swings at the pitch, whether an intentionally thrown ball or not, should be called a strike.

Thanks for your reply - great to have a pro in the discussion. My interpretation all along has been that the batter did not, in fact "swing at the pitch". He swung the bat, but not "AT" the pitch. So are you saying that any swing of the bat, whether it was AT the pitch or not should be called a stike in this situation? Or, would it be more accurate to say that it's impossible to swing the bat without judging that it was AT the pitch?

[umpire_scott]

It would seem that if you deny the swing because it was clearly an attempt to reach first base on a wild pitch or passed ball then you also have precedence to deny the swing on an IBB when the only reason is to make the pitcher throw more pitches. Unless you are stating that the swing was so clearly late as to be a swing after the pitch had already been taken for a ball.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Here's a related scenario that happened to me a few years ago. HS varsity game at Rickwood Field. Backstop is a good 40 feet behind the plate. 2-2 count, pitcher uncorks one that sails over my head. Batter swings, takes off, and winds up at 2nd on the uncaught third strike. Defensive coach comes to me and tells me "He can't do that...he couldn't touch that pitch". How would you rule ?

[Jocko]

According to UmpSchool, put him back at the dish, full count. In the past, I would've let the play stand. Now, Ima do it like they teach at WUS (Ironic acronym, huh?).

[UmpTTS43]

Too funny.

[noumpere]

Here's a related scenario that happened to me a few years ago. HS varsity game at Rickwood Field. Backstop is a good 40 feet behind the plate. 2-2 count, pitcher uncorks one that sails over my head. Batter swings, takes off, and winds up at 2nd on the uncaught third strike. Defensive coach comes to me and tells me "He can't do that...he couldn't touch that pitch". How would you rule ?

First the backstop must of been further back than that because the standard is 60 feet (see the diagram in the rule book) even though I recognize that not all fields are like that.

Second I think that this is a good example of what I meant earlier about swinging DURING the pitch as compared to swinging AT the pitch ando sometimes it can be hard to tell as when a batter just swings to protect the base stealer but at least there the swing is in the zone and the ball is at least near the zone.

[Jocko]

Here's a related scenario that happened to me a few years ago. HS varsity game at Rickwood Field. Backstop is a good 40 feet behind the plate. 2-2 count, pitcher uncorks one that sails over my head. Batter swings, takes off, and winds up at 2nd on the uncaught third strike. Defensive coach comes to me and tells me "He can't do that...he couldn't touch that pitch". How would you rule ?

First the backstop must of been further back than that because the standard is 60 feet (see the diagram in the rule book) even though I recognize that not all fields are like that.

Second I think that this is a good example of what I meant earlier about swinging DURING the pitch as compared to swinging AT the pitch ando sometimes it can be hard to tell as when a batter just swings to protect the base stealer but at least there the swing is in the zone and the ball is at least near the zone.

This field is over 100 years old. The grandparents of the people who drew the diagram you speak of weren't even born when this stadium was built.

It is a very long way from the dish to the backstop, and it crowns steeply as it decends down and away from HP

[noumpere]

Here's a related scenario that happened to me a few years ago. HS varsity game at Rickwood Field. Backstop is a good 40 feet behind the plate. 2-2 count, pitcher uncorks one that sails over my head. Batter swings, takes off, and winds up at 2nd on the uncaught third strike. Defensive coach comes to me and tells me "He can't do that...he couldn't touch that pitch". How would you rule ?

First the backstop must of been further back than that because the standard is 60 feet (see the diagram in the rule book) even though I recognize that not all fields are like that.

Second I think that this is a good example of what I meant earlier about swinging DURING the pitch as compared to swinging AT the pitch ando sometimes it can be hard to tell as when a batter just swings to protect the base stealer but at least there the swing is in the zone and the ball is at least near the zone.

This field is over 100 years old. The grandparents of the people who drew the diagram you speak of weren't even born when this stadium was built.

It is a very long way from the dish to the backstop, and it crowns steeply as it decends down and away from HP

My point is that 4o feet isnt a very long way from the dish to the backstop so either it was longer than 40 feet or it wasnt very far.

[Jocko]

It might be 75 feet. I honestly don't know. It is normal on a routine passed ball to the BS for R1 to go to 3b

[boyinr]

OK I get it now - if it wasn't possible to hit the ball it's a "ball" even though the batter swung.

So if a batter flails away at a low and away curve and misses it buy a foot it's a "ball" because he couldn't possibly have hit it.

I get it now.

Thanks all.

If this is the case my HS OBP should have 1.000 because I didn't have any chance every time I went to the plate. A 4 pitch swinging base on balls!

[grayhawk]

If this play happens in a Little League game, it's umpire judgment on whether to call it a ball or a strike. They posted this on their Facebook page:

"If the umpire believes a batter has "struck at" a pitch, regardless of where that pitch was in relation to the strike zone, or the actual or perceived intent of the pitcher, then that umpire should call it a strike (assuming the batter does not hit the pitch into fair territory, or, with two strikes, foul it off, the catcher does not interfere, the pitch does not hit the batter, etc.). If the umpire believes a batter has not "struck at" a pitch, regardless of where that pitch was in relation to the strike zone, or the actual or perceived intent of the pitcher, then that umpire should call it a ball or a called strike (assuming the bat does not make contact with the ball, the catcher does not interfere, the ball does not hit the batter, etc.)."

So here's the deal: If you judge that any swing of the bat is "striking at" the pitch, then you should most certainly call it a strike. If you judge that a batter can swing the bat without "striking at" the pitch, and the pitch is out of the strike zone (such as during an IBB), then call it a ball. Neither umpire will be wrong because it's a judgment call.

[KLAH316]

Wow..... I still can't believe this discussion is on its 7th page!!

FSB Record, here we come!!

[JaxRolo]

IMHO any swing by the batter is considered "striking at"

I can't see myself explaining to the coach.

Me: Ball

Coach: but he swung the bat

Me: yes he did coach

Coach: so it's a strike!

Me: it's a ball coach

Coach: Why!!!

Me: He wasn't striking at the pitch.

[RichMSN]

Here's the latest post from LLBBSBI:

"If you would like to have a rule included that specifically says a batter is not permitted to "strike at" a pitch that cannot be hit (whether or not it is an obvious intentional base-on-balls or just a random pitch far outside the strike zone), in order to run up the pitch count, then you can certainly suggest that to your District Admnistrator for inclusion in the LL International Congress Agenda for 2014.

Until then, it is purely an issue of umpire judgment.

Now, if WE were the umpire behind the plate, taking all of the factors into account, WE would likely not call a swinging strike if it was clear to US that the batter's intent was not to "strike at" (sorry...quoting rules again -- we can't help it) a pitch that is so far outside the strike zone as to be completely un-hittable.

But that's just us."

[Rich Ives]

It was a heck of a non-answer.

Umpire judgement.

Same place we were days ago.