HBP #2

[Umpire in Chief]

Dix posted a good question under rules about HBP. It got me thinking.

 

How would you handle each of these situations in NFHS? 

 

Remember NFHS 7-3-4 states: "The batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him."

 

 

[jkumpire]

If the ball hits him in the back in the batters box, he got hit where he's allowed to be. "The player just cannot disappear" as Evans says. Put him on the base.  As I see the play if it hits him at the back then the pitch is way away formt he plate and the hitter getting a base is legit.

 

In the first question, if it hits him on the front arm or chest, or close to the plate on the slow lazy curveball in Fed, keep him there. 

Anyone else have a comment?

[grayhawk]

If the ball hits him in the back in the batters box, he got hit where he's allowed to be. "The player just cannot disappear" as Evans says. Put him on the base.  As I see the play if it hits him at the back then the pitch is way away formt he plate and the hitter getting a base is legit.

 

In the first question, if it hits him on the front arm or chest, or close to the plate on the slow lazy curveball in Fed, keep him there. 

Anyone else have a comment?

 

Agree on all fronts.  If the pitch hits the batter in the back, he's going to first base.  I voted to award in each case above.

[umpstu]

If he throws some part of his body into the pitch, by all means keep him there. A good rule of thumb, did the pitched ball hit him or did he hit the pitched ball?

[Mudder]

OBR.  Different parts of the country and associations handle this differently, but for me the rule is very clear.  I'm not concerned with where the ball is pitched, the key to me is batter intent and effort.  If I can judge the batter had time and opportunity to try and avoid, and he stands motionless, he is staying there.  Of course there are always extenuating circumstances that you have to take into consideration, and I will even try and give batter the benefit of the doubt, so even the smallest of movements to try and avoid on his part will give him the base.

 

I will concur with most others that many umps just do not enforce this rule, not even at MLB level, and I hate seeing that!

[KLAH316]

Since I am not, nor ever will be an MLB Umpire, I am stuck working AMATURE baseball forever. 

That being said, I will practically always award 1st base in youth ball unless it's SO OBVIOUS that the batter tried to get hit!

It's one of those things that 99.9% of the people at the game including coaches expect the batter to get 1st. 

 

Wrong end of the stick if you choose to get too technical.

 

Just my opinion!

[Dannytheman]

I vote give him the base and pray the pitcher learns a lesson!

 

I love it more when the curve comes at their head and the batter bails, and the ball breaks for the strike.  They always look at you funny as you call it.  HUH?!?!?!!?

[maven]

People misread "permit the ball to hit him." Sometimes, I permit the ball to hit me by standing still; sometimes, by moving into it. The crucial point is that I know where the ball is going to be and intentionally locate myself there. Moving or not proves nothing.

 

So there are 2 ways to fail to meet this test: one is if I don't know where the ball is going to be, since in that case I cannot be said to have permitted it to hit me.The other is if I do not intentionally locate myself there, for instance by freezing or trying but failing to get out of the way.

 

And don't cry to me about reading the batter's mind: we determine each others intentions every day, all the time, for instance by figuring out whether someone is being sincere or sarcastic. We're all mind readers, and most of the time it's the easiest thing in the world.

 

Just like determining HBP.

[bam]

If a pitched ball hits the batter when he's in the batter's box, I'm awarding first. 

 

I love that phrase "shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him."  If I'm a rat, how do you award a base ANY time my pitcher hits a batter?  This phrase put the onus on the batter to avoid a pitched ball. 

 

The pitcher screwed up here by throwing the ball at the batter in the batter's box.  That's good enough for me. 

[maven]

The pitcher screwed up here by throwing the ball at the batter in the batter's box.  That's good enough for me. 

 

I believe something along those lines is part of the NCAA HBP rule.

[Rich Ives]

Maven's right on NCAA. If the ball is completely in the batter's box the batter doesn't have to try to avoid it.

 

And for the initial question: A ball hitting a batter in the back is 2-3 feet inside. That's 99.9% on the pitcher.

[Umpire in Chief]

 

The pitcher screwed up here by throwing the ball at the batter in the batter's box.  That's good enough for me. 

 

I believe something along those lines is part of the NCAA HBP rule.

 

I was told that myth too about a batter being hit in the box having no obligation to move. 

 

NCAA 8-2-d-2

[sdix00]

OK - 

Is it the general consensus that there is effectively NO DIFFERENCE in enforcement of this sitch between OBR, NCAA and NFHS?

 

Or does anyone still think there is a practical difference?

[Rich Ives]

 

 

The pitcher screwed up here by throwing the ball at the batter in the batter's box.  That's good enough for me. 

 

I believe something along those lines is part of the NCAA HBP rule.

 

I was told that myth too about a batter being hit in the box having no obligation to move. 

 

NCAA 8-2-d-2

 

 

 

Keep reading.

 

8-2-d-2 A.R.—If the batter freezes and is hit by a pitch that is clearly inside the vertical lines of the batter’s box, the ball is dead and the batter is awarded first base.

 

The batters just freeze up and take one for the team.

[Rich Ives]

Were all you guys pitchers in your playing days? Why are some of you so bent on finding a reason to override the pitch-in-the-batter's-box HBP?

 

Someone voted he would keep a batter there for turning his back in on the pitch. It's pretty instinctive. That and getting  hit on the back is much better than getting hit on the front - if better is even a good word to use. It still hurts.

 

Three guys would keep a deer-in-the-headlights batter there? Wow!

 

One person would keep a bailing batter there because his bail move happened to take him into the ball?

[jkumpire]

OBR.  Different parts of the country and associations handle this differently, but for me the rule is very clear.  I'm not concerned with where the ball is pitched, the key to me is batter intent and effort.  If I can judge the batter had time and opportunity to try and avoid, and he stands motionless, he is staying there.  Of course there are always extenuating circumstances that you have to take into consideration, and I will even try and give batter the benefit of the doubt, so even the smallest of movements to try and avoid on his part will give him the base.

 

I will concur with most others that many umps just do not enforce this rule, not even at MLB level, and I hate seeing that!

 

Mudder I understand what you are saying, but here is the problem with your view IMO: What does the term 'batter's box' mean? If you say he is allowed to be there, and a ball hits him in the back while he's standing there in the middile of his box, you are telling everyone that it's not the batter's box. F1 can throw inside at will, which gives him an unfair advantage on the outside corner. If F1 throiws it where he shouldn't throw it, and you as the umpire let him get away with it by not peanlizing him for doing so, it causes lots of problems.

 

Having said that I understand the FED's problem, they don't want inexperienced players taking hard shots unles they freeze or don't get ouf of the way the right way. And if a batter is crowding the plate or chicken wings an elbow to get a free base, well that's what the rule is there for. anhy umpire worth a hoot puts the batter back in the box, almost all of us will agree on this. And FED tried to write rules to protect players. But protecting players doesn't allow F1's to throw inside a batter's safe area does it?  

[BuckeyeMike]

I've only kept a batter in the box ONCE after something like this.  After his team was yelling "TAKE ONE", cause the previous pitch was inside.  Sure enough the next pitch was a lazy curve inside, he took it on the shoulder without so much as flinching, and started to trot off.  I told him to get back in the box. 

 

I could see the 1st base coach asking my BU questions.  Durng the post-game debrief, my partner told me that the coach had asked, "he can do that?  keep the batter in the box after a HBP?!"   LOL.

 

You gotta be careful with coach's arguments........they don't always know the rules.

[mstaylor]

I voted to keep him on the first, send him on the other three. I have always been tougher on this rule than most. The rule says he can't let the pitched ball hit him. That means the NCAA rule DOES NOT APPLY! Apply the rules of the level you are working and Fed says he has to give you something. Personally turning your shoulder is BS on a slow curve, but I will play the game. Watching it hit you, you're here. By giving him his base on anything then you are the ones taking the inside away from the pitcher. He gets to use the whole plate and sometimes he misses, that shouldn't be a felony. 

[Rich Ives]

A pitch in the middle of the batter's box is 2 1/2 feet  (30") inside. Almost the length of a yardstick.

 

That's ALL on the pitcher.

[bam]

I voted to keep him on the first, send him on the other three. I have always been tougher on this rule than most. The rule says he can't let the pitched ball hit him. That means the NCAA rule DOES NOT APPLY! Apply the rules of the level you are working and Fed says he has to give you something. Personally turning your shoulder is BS on a slow curve, but I will play the game. Watching it hit you, you're here. By giving him his base on anything then you are the ones taking the inside away from the pitcher. He gets to use the whole plate and sometimes he misses, that shouldn't be a felony. 

 

He gets to use the plate.  He doesn't get the batter's boxes, too!

 

I've had partners who have kept batters at the plate on a HBP.  We always discuss after the game and my input is:  "Was the ball in the batter's box?  If so, I would send him to first." 

And a felony gets you EJ'd.  This is just a civil infraction...

 

[mstaylor]

Straight up, you are incorrectly applying the rule and using your personal belief to defend it. If they adopt the NCAA rule, no problem, but they haven't so you can't use it. 

[bam]

Are we talking about FED?  We already picked that nit - "must not allow to the ball to strike him", or whatever it is - it's all judgment, isn't it? 

[mstaylor]

Yes, but your own admission you are applying none. You say, in the box he has to do nothing. That is not applying judgment or the rule. 

[bam]

You are absolutely correct.  This falls under "making an unusual call on a routine play."  I try not to insert myself into the game under those kinds of unusual circumstances.  It saves a lot of headaches. 

[mstaylor]

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The times that this happens is infrequent. If most have your attitude then the expected call is you are sending him. Actually it should be him staying there, and if you do tht then it becomes the expected call. Very rarely should you keep a batter, most of those are some form of chickenwinging. However, occasionally there is a case where a batter just stands thee and watches a ball hit him, he should stay. That is applying judgement. It will even happen occasionally in OBR, but the wording is different. NCAA, he has to chase the pitch. The rule changes, no problem, I'll call it that way. I have worked college with both forms of the rule.