Batter HBP

[mstaylor]

Let's take away the "check swing" and the batter remains stationary when the pitch rides in and hits his hand. Are you still calling it a HBP. If so, maybe you are nuts.

If you take away the check swing then I fully expect him to do something. There are times when a pitch will freeze a batter but you have to umpire that. If he just lets it hit him then he is staying. Add the checked swing and his ability to avoid is seriously hampered, at that point you have to decide if he went after the pitch to get hit.

[jjskitours]

Nut cases.

Let's take away the "check swing" and the batter remains stationary when the pitch rides in and hits his hand. Are you still calling it a HBP.

Youth ball yes - they freeze up.

HS - maybe - depends on how far in and what kind of pitch.

NCAA the batters are not required to avoid if the ball's in the batter's box. Theat should give you a clue on the thought process.

Pro - you need to blatantly get hit to get the No HBP call. The slightest twitch will get you a HBP.

Guys - the pitcher F'd up. Don't reward him unless the batter blatantly got hit on purpose.

Actually in 2010 NF (HS) adopted the NCAA guideline - See NFHS Preseason Guide for Baseball. No movement (attempt to avoid) required. Actually they even use the final statement by Rich although not those exact words. Exact wording - Previously, he was required to make an attempt to get out of the way. That put the onus on the offensive player, when it was the pitcher who erred by throwing a ball that far inside.

[mstaylor]

Oh please. De ja vu! This was the exact way that stupid IBB swing discussion started. A thousand people say it's a strike (HBP), but one or two keep the convo going by arguing it's a ball (strike).

No offense intended.

And, yes, it is the same sort of discussion -- with one perspective from experience and tradition and another directly from the rule.

I'm sorry if you feel that I have wasted your time. You might squeeze a little value out of the thread by considering the manager's perspective for purposes other than making a call.

There are two competing standards for judgement in play here:

1. Did he try to get hit?
   
   
2. Did he try to avoid getting hit?
   

If you're really using standard 1, be careful how you explain your call to rats such as myself, who will expect you to use standard 2.

Actually you need to use both standards. Trying to avoid can be a very slight movement, not necessarily even an avoid move, but it needs to look like one. Trying to get hit is illegal in all codes.

OBR: Attempt to avoid.

NFHS: Can't let the ball purposely hit him.

NCAA: Can't lean into the pitch

[Jocko]

Fed - Allows the pitch to hit him

The inference is he must attempt to move, the reality is he can "turn and take it." If he stands stock still and watches it to his body, it's a ball. If he flinches away from it or turns away from F1, HBP.

[basejester]

Ahhh - buit you should have been around the game long enough to know to expect standard 1. It's been the one one in use "forever".

Understood. The rulebook should also tell me the actual standard.

Under OBR, in the case where you judge not #1 and not #2, and the defensive manager asks, "Did he try to avoid being touched by the ball?", do you tactfully avoid the question? Fib? If you honestly and straight-forwardly, wouldn't the manager have valid grounds for protest?

In the swing on IBB discussion, if I had called a ball, and the manager asked, "Did he swing?", I think I should answer straight-forwardly, "yes". Winning the protest shouldn't be the top priority, in my opinion.

[Jocko]

.

That little dot is infinitismally larger than any valid argument against HBP anyone can make. This is unequivocally the most inane discussion I think I've ever read.

I mentioned in another thread how Mgrs/Coaches are the lawyers trying to circumvent rule and procedure, and Umpires are the Judges, making sure not only letter of the law, but spirit of the law is adhered to. Case in point.

[noumpere]

Fed - Allows the pitch to hit him

The inference is he must attempt to move, the reality is he can "turn and take it." If he stands stock still and watches it to his body, it's a ball. If he flinches away from it or turns away from F1, HBP.

Actually I think the inference is "had a reasonable chance to move out of the way and chose not to"

That, and the "doesnt move into the pitch" are the two times I wont give the base and event he first one doesnt applyin college if the ball is over the batters box.

Several times Ive had a pitch hit the batter right in the hip and Ive told the manager "he couldnt of gotten out of the way if he tried" and the manager has left happy (or at least as happy aas a manager can be lol)

[grayhawk]

Oh please. De ja vu! This was the exact way that stupid IBB swing discussion started. A thousand people say it's a strike (HBP), but one or two keep the convo going by arguing it's a ball (strike).

Your apparent lack of understanding what one side was arguing aside, the "one or two" were ultimately shown correct by the only governing body that mattered for that particular discussion.

[RichMSN]

Oh please. De ja vu! This was the exact way that stupid IBB swing discussion started. A thousand people say it's a strike (HBP), but one or two keep the convo going by arguing it's a ball (strike).

Your apparent lack of understanding what one side was arguing aside, the "one or two" were ultimately shown correct by the only governing body that mattered for that particular discussion.

Yup.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Ahhh - buit you should have been around the game long enough to know to expect standard 1. It's been the one one in use "forever".

Understood. The rulebook should also tell me the actual standard.

Under OBR, in the case where you judge not #1 and not #2, and the defensive manager asks, "Did he try to avoid being touched by the ball?", do you tactfully avoid the question? Fib? If you honestly and straight-forwardly, wouldn't the manager have valid grounds for protest?

In the swing on IBB discussion, if I had called a ball, and the manager asked, "Did he swing?", I think I should answer straight-forwardly, "yes". Winning the protest shouldn't be the top priority, in my opinion.

Judgement calls are not protestable. If you determine that a batter did or did not attempt to avoid, that is a judgement call.

[basejester]

Judgement calls are not protestable. If you determine that a batter did or did not attempt to avoid, that is a judgement call.

The judgement itself is not protestable, but the basis for the judgement is.

The hypothetical scenario was that the umpire DID NOT determine that a batter did or did not attempt to avoid; he determined whether or not that batter attempted to get hit. If the umpire and manager agree to this set of facts, then the manager can lodge a protest.

Therefore, the exact language in the umpire's explanation, where tradition and written rule somewhat conflict, is important.

[Jocko]

Judgement calls are not protestable. If you determine that a batter did or did not attempt to avoid, that is a judgement call.

The judgement itself is not protestable, but the basis for the judgement is.

The hypothetical scenario was that the umpire DID NOT determine that a batter did or did not attempt to avoid; he determined whether or not that batter attempted to get hit. If the umpire and manager agree to this set of facts, then the manager can lodge a protest.

Therefore, the exact language in the umpire's explanation, where tradition and written rule somewhat conflict, is important.

HC - did he attempt to get outta the way

HP - judgement call, Skip. HBP.

What else is necessary?