Smartest batter alive

[Senor Azul]

Mr. lilleaguer,

 

 

I don't blame you for wanting to know where the casebook play I posted came from. In fact, it is a very good question. It's odd that the Carl Childress' 2014 BRD does not give attribution. So I went to my copy of the 2011 BRD and there is one. It lists that play as an Authoritative Opinion from Jaksa/Roder. So the play has been in his BRD for at least three years and apparently no one has challenged it as being totally wrong. In fact, the interpretation from the J/R that supports the play is:

 

The umpire does not award the batter first if he is hit by a pitch that would have been a strike.

 

All three codes (Fed, NCAA, and OBR)  have interpretations that say essentially the same thing, i.e., a batter must make an attempt to avoid the pitch. You can look them up yourself in the BRD, or the J/R, or the Wendelstedt manual as well. If you insist, I will transcribe all of those for you but I am sure they will be discounted for some reason.

[Replacematt]

Mr. lilleaguer,

 

 

I don't blame you for wanting to know where the casebook play I posted came from. In fact, it is a very good question. It's odd that the Carl Childress' 2014 BRD does not give attribution. So I went to my copy of the 2011 BRD and there is one. It lists that play as an Authoritative Opinion from Jaksa/Roder. So the play has been in his BRD for at least three years and apparently no one has challenged it as being totally wrong. In fact, the interpretation from the J/R that supports the play is:

 

The umpire does not award the batter first if he is hit by a pitch that would have been a strike.

 

All three codes (Fed, NCAA, and OBR)  have interpretations that say essentially the same thing, i.e., a batter must make an attempt to avoid the pitch. You can look them up yourself in the BRD, or the J/R, or the Wendelstedt manual as well. If you insist, I will transcribe all of those for you but I am sure they will be discounted for some reason.

J/R is not authoritative.

If there are actual interpretations that cover this situation (what to rule a pitch not in the strike zone that would have become a strike,) I would love to see them

[Senor Azul]

OK. Here's Mr. Wendelstedt's authoritative opinion from his 2014 rules manual (text can be found on page 130):

 

A batter becomes a runner and is entitled to advance to first base without liability of being put out when:

 

He is hit with a pitch which he is not attempting to hit unless

 

The batter either intentionally attempts to be hit with the pitch, or intentionally allows the pitch to hit him.

 

There is plenty more but I am sure you will now sneer at Mr. Wendelstedt. So now I challenge you to find a casebook play or some other interpretation from some worthy source that states a batter can reach out and touch the pitch and be rewarded with a base. Otherwise, just admit that your on-field ruling was wrong and thank me for steering you in the right direction..

[Replacematt]

OK. Here's Mr. Wendelstedt's authoritative opinion from his 2014 rules manual (text can be found on page 130):

 

A batter becomes a runner and is entitled to advance to first base without liability of being put out when:

 

He is hit with a pitch which he is not attempting to hit unless

 

The batter either intentionally attempts to be hit with the pitch, or intentionally allows the pitch to hit him.

 

There is plenty more but I am sure you will now sneer at Mr. Wendelstedt. So now I challenge you to find a casebook play or some other interpretation from some worthy source that states a batter can reach out and touch the pitch and be rewarded with a base. Otherwise, just admit that your on-field ruling was wrong and thank me for steering you in the right direction..

It was ball four, champ. That's why he got first. So, the Wendelstedt ruling that you are quoting doesn't apply, as he didn't get first on HBP.

[afaber12]

OK. Here's Mr. Wendelstedt's authoritative opinion from his 2014 rules manual (text can be found on page 130):

 

A batter becomes a runner and is entitled to advance to first base without liability of being put out when:

 

He is hit with a pitch which he is not attempting to hit unless

 

The batter either intentionally attempts to be hit with the pitch, or intentionally allows the pitch to hit him.

 

There is plenty more but I am sure you will now sneer at Mr. Wendelstedt. So now I challenge you to find a casebook play or some other interpretation from some worthy source that states a batter can reach out and touch the pitch and be rewarded with a base. Otherwise, just admit that your on-field ruling was wrong and thank me for steering you in the right direction..

 

So Mr Wendelstedt's opinion says a batter doesn't get first base for being hit by a pitch if the batter's intent is to get hit. I doubt there'd be too many who'd quibble with that part. But assuming that's what applies in the OP with a 3-2 count, what is the result of the pitch?

 

Assume that had the pitch continued its direct path that it had been following up until contact with the batter, the ball would not have passed through the strike zone. Maybe it was a curveball that would have broken into the zone, but maybe it wouldn't have broken at all and just hung on its continuing path. Sure if you judge it as being in the strike zone it should be called a strike. I can even accept that a pitch that the batter touches in front of and about to pass through the strike zone should be called a strike. But if you judge that when it touched the batter, the pitch was not in the strike zone, was not heading on a path that would take it through the strike zone, and was not stuck at by the batter, on what basis are you going to rule it something other than a ball? Since there was already 3 balls in the count, its ball 4 and the batter gets first base.

 

Or are you going to rule that the batter sticking his arm out at the pitch constitutes "striking at the pitch", and hang your hat on the fact that there is no specific reference in the rules that says that a batter striking at a pitch only counts if he does so with his bat?

[Senor Azul]

Let me try another tack by asking you a few questions.

 

If an in-flight pitch is knocked down by the batter so that it never passes the plate or a foul line, how do you know if that pitch is a strike or a ball? Do you ordinarily call balls and strikes before the ball arrives?

 

If a batter is allowed to reach out and swat away an in-flight pitch in front of the plate on a 3-2 count (and not suffer any consequences), why can't he do it on any count or no count?

 

Let's suppose that a RH pitcher decides to throw four consecutive breaking balls to a RH batter. And the batter is fooled by them all so he just swats them all down in front of the plate. Is that legal? Is that just a normal base on balls? Or isn't that a travesty of the game?

 

Do you really think you have found a loophole in the rules? If yes, then why don't we see this happening much more often?

 

If this is a loophole, why aren't the rules committees scurrying to fix it?

 

And would we even have a game if this were legal? The visiting team would come to the plate and just swat all the pitches down before they reach the plate and would never be retired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Replacematt]

Let me try another tack by asking you a few questions.

 

If an in-flight pitch is knocked down by the batter so that it never passes the plate or a foul line, how do you know if that pitch is a strike or a ball? Do you ordinarily call balls and strikes before the ball arrives?

 

If a batter is allowed to reach out and swat away an in-flight pitch in front of the plate on a 3-2 count (and not suffer any consequences), why can't he do it on any count or no count?

 

Let's suppose that a RH pitcher decides to throw four consecutive breaking balls to a RH batter. And the batter is fooled by them all so he just swats them all down in front of the plate. Is that legal? Is that just a normal base on balls? Or isn't that a travesty of the game?

 

Do you really think you have found a loophole in the rules? If yes, then why don't we see this happening much more often?

 

If this is a loophole, why aren't the rules committees scurrying to fix it?

 

And would we even have a game if this were legal? The visiting team would come to the plate and just swat all the pitches down before they reach the plate and would never be retired.

 

Travesty of the game exists in one form only--running the bases in reverse.

 

As for the rest, I'm really not in the mood to deal with absurdities. Find an interpretation that allows for a strike to be called on a pitch that never enters the zone due to the batter's action, and then there can be a discussion. Otherwise, you are wasting bandwidth and abusing the purpose of this site.

[afaber12]

Let me try another tack by asking you a few questions.

If an in-flight pitch is knocked down by the batter so that it never passes the plate or a foul line, how do you know if that pitch is a strike or a ball? Do you ordinarily call balls and strikes before the ball arrives?

If a batter is allowed to reach out and swat away an in-flight pitch in front of the plate on a 3-2 count (and not suffer any consequences), why can't he do it on any count or no count?

Let's suppose that a RH pitcher decides to throw four consecutive breaking balls to a RH batter. And the batter is fooled by them all so he just swats them all down in front of the plate. Is that legal? Is that just a normal base on balls? Or isn't that a travesty of the game?

Do you really think you have found a loophole in the rules? If yes, then why don't we see this happening much more often?

If this is a loophole, why aren't the rules committees scurrying to fix it?

And would we even have a game if this were legal? The visiting team would come to the plate and just swat all the pitches down before they reach the plate and would never be retired.

If the batter's fooled by the breaking ball, yet somehow has the reflexes to swat at it with his hand and make contact with it, surely he can make just as likely to connect attempt with the bat he's holding in his hand, particularly if he decided to stand at the plate rather than presumably at the front of the box to make sure he got to it before it reached the plate. Also he's less likely to be injured if he uses the bat rather than his hand: I've seen a broken finger in BP in this type of situation.

I think the reason you don't see it - which in turn is why it's not being "fixed" in the rules - is because it's a stupid tactic that if successful is a way that maybe results in a walk but an injury or several, rather than swinging the bat to get more than one base.

I also think that if the pitch hasn't reached the plate you as an umpire do your best to judge the likelihood of the pitch going through the zone. I don't have a problem with erring in favour of the pitcher with that judgement, but if you judge it wasn't going to be a strike, that it was at shoulder height or something as obviously not a strike, what are you going to call? Strike? Do over?

[basejester]

Let's suppose that a RH pitcher decides to throw four consecutive breaking balls to a RH batter. And the batter is fooled by them all so he just swats them all down in front of the plate. Is that legal? Is that just a normal base on balls? Or isn't that a travesty of the game?

 

Do you really think you have found a loophole in the rules? If yes, then why don't we see this happening much more often?

 

If this is a loophole, why aren't the rules committees scurrying to fix it?

As we aren't able to find anything supporting calling this a strike, I think, yes, he has found a loophole in the rules. However, I've never seen a batter do anything like this (perhaps due to the danger, ignorance of the loophole, or respect for the tradition of the game), so I don't think it's a practical problem with the rules.

[JaxRolo]

@Senor Azul

I completely agree with you. According to @Matt WUA and JR are wrong.

At this point we are just going to go back and forth with no resolution.

It makes total good sense not to award 1st

[JaxRolo]

I'm going to become a coach and wing every game by having each batter reach out and get hit before ball reaches strike zone. Heck I won't eleven have them bring bats to the games, they won't be needed.

[noumpere]

 

 

The clear implication in Fed and NCAA codes is the batter must make an attempt to avoid a pitch that is outside the vertical lines of his box. For OBR a batter must attempt to avoid any pitch regardless of location.

Note that NCAA is changing (removing) the "clearly inside the batter's box" (or whatever the exact wordage is) language next year.  Batter must attempt to avoid no matter where the pitch is (subject to further interpretations over the next several months, I'm sure)

[Replacematt]

I completely agree with you. According to @Matt WUA and JR are wrong.

No, WUA does not address the situation. J/R is wrong (as it has been in multiple occasions before) unless someone can provide support for its assessment.

It makes total good sense not to award 1st

 

And again, what's your rules support?

[DVA7130]

 

 

 

 

 

Strikes are a judgment call.

It is probably in my strike zone for this play.

Eject as necessary for leaving position.

 

Making things up doesn't get you any respect.

 

Are you questioning judgment calls?

We will not be discussing balls and strikes today.

 

 

Just grading you on integrity.

 

And now I don't have to deal with the objectionable anymore, how pleasant.

And on your way out, Good luck with the protest committee. I am sure they will be very interested in your definition of the strike zone, and how there is no way that's where the pitch was.

 

Try that SH*# when I'm evaluating you and that's the last game you do with us.

:spit:

 

Good! Because it sounds like quite the spineless organization.

Not to mention the evaluator's rule interpretation.

[JaxRolo]

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

[MadMax]

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

[JaxRolo]

 

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

 

Strike 3

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strikes are a judgment call.

It is probably in my strike zone for this play.

Eject as necessary for leaving position.

 

Making things up doesn't get you any respect.

 

Are you questioning judgment calls?

We will not be discussing balls and strikes today.

 

 

Just grading you on integrity.

 

And now I don't have to deal with the objectionable anymore, how pleasant.

And on your way out, Good luck with the protest committee. I am sure they will be very interested in your definition of the strike zone, and how there is no way that's where the pitch was.

 

Try that SH*# when I'm evaluating you and that's the last game you do with us.

:spit:

 

Good! Because it sounds like quite the spineless organization.

Not to mention the evaluator's rule interpretation.

 

 

I can assure you that my association is neither spineless nor lacking integrity (as evidenced by its body of work at the levels it does.) I cannot say the same about yours if it allows umpires to do what you suggest here.

 

 

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

 

Strike 3

 

And his logic is?

[lawump]

If you say "dead ball" at a good umpire camp or clinic with professional school trained clinicians you will have to speak about the "dead ball" at an impromptu funeral at home plate.

Been to several "funerals" at the various camps and clinics I've been to. The first guy they catch saying "dead ball" has to speak while the instructors remind us not to say it. Very good and fun way of making the point. IMHO

I have been known to say at clinics, "the ball became dead the day they shot the cow.  There's no need to remind everyone of that fact during a game."

[DVA7130]

Strikes are a judgment call.

It is probably in my strike zone for this play.

Eject as necessary for leaving position.

 

Making things up doesn't get you any respect.

Are you questioning judgment calls?

We will not be discussing balls and strikes today.

 

Just grading you on integrity.

And now I don't have to deal with the objectionable anymore, how pleasant.

And on your way out, Good luck with the protest committee. I am sure they will be very interested in your definition of the strike zone, and how there is no way that's where the pitch was.

Try that SH*# when I'm evaluating you and that's the last game you do with us.

:spit:

 

Good! Because it sounds like quite the spineless organization.

Not to mention the evaluator's rule interpretation.

 

I can assure you that my association is neither spineless nor lacking integrity (as evidenced by its body of work at the levels it does.) I cannot say the same about yours if it allows umpires to do what you suggest here.

I can only assume you are referring to this.

"And on your way out, Good luck with the protest committee. I am sure they will be very interested in your definition of the strike zone, and how there is no way that's where the pitch was. "

That would never be said in a game, but you can be darn sure that's what id be thinking if some fool protested over this.

[lawump]

 

 

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

 

Strike 3

 

Damn straight, skippy.  It is pretty damn hard in pro baseball for a batter not to be awarded first base when he is hit by the pitch.  For him not to be awarded first base, he has to do something pretty damn obvious.  Sure, the OT Manager will still come out and argue (they will ALWAYS argue when you don't award a HBP after the batter was struck by the pitch), but you (the umpire) will likely be able to tell that the manager's heart won't be in the argument and that he's just "going through the motions."

 

With that said, if the batter does something obvious enough that you (the umpire) have decided not to award him first base (which, again is very rare in pro ball), then I am going to invoke "the first unwritten rule of (pro) umpiring": don't take the SH*#ty end of the stick.  The OT's player screwed up...punish him.  I'm calling strike three here,...unless there was absolutely no way the pitch could in any way have become a strike.   And if they start arguing the called strike three, I'll just respond, "if your player didn't stick his elbow out there to get hit by the pitch, I might have had a better look at the pitch and made a different call." 

 

Sure, that explanation of why I called "strike three" might end in ejections, but I'm sleeping well that night in the hotel room because I punished the team that screwed up (or, worse, tried to cheat). 

 

Finally, what are they going to protest? My ruling the batter's actions of striking the pitch with his elbow to be intentional AND my ruling the pitch to be a "strike" are judgment calls...they're not protestable.   There's no improper application of the rules for them to protest.  I'll write my ejection reports, if needed, and then go to bed and have a good night sleep. 

 

Signed,

--former MiLB umpire

[DVA7130]

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

Strike 3

Damn straight, skippy.  It is pretty damn hard in pro baseball for a batter not to be awarded first base when he is hit by the pitch.  For him not to be awarded first base, he has to do something pretty damn obvious.  Sure, the OT Manager will still come out and argue (they will ALWAYS argue when you don't award a HBP after the batter was struck by the pitch), but you (the umpire) will likely be able to tell that the manager's heart won't be in the argument and that he's just "going through the motions."

 

With that said, if the batter does something obvious enough that you (the umpire) have decided not to award him first base (which, again is very rare in pro ball), then I am going to invoke "the first unwritten rule of (pro) umpiring": don't take the SH*#ty end of the stick.  The OT's player screwed up...punish him.  I'm calling strike three here,...unless there was absolutely no way the pitch could in any way have become a strike.   And if they start arguing the called strike three, I'll just respond, "if your player didn't stick his elbow out there to get hit by the pitch, I might have had a better look at the pitch and made a different call." 

 

Sure, that explanation of why I called "strike three" might end in ejections, but I'm sleeping well that night in the hotel room because I punished the team that screwed up (or, worse, tried to cheat). 

 

Finally, what are they going to protest? My ruling the batter's actions of striking the pitch with his elbow to be intentional AND my ruling the pitch to be a "strike" are judgment calls...they're not protestable.   There's no improper application of the rules for them to protest.  I'll write my ejection reports, if needed, and then go to bed and have a good night sleep. 

 

Signed,

--former MiLB umpire

Perfect. Close this thread please.

[noumpere]

 

 

Signed,

--former MiLB umpire

 

not authoritative. 

[JaxRolo]

I just finished discussing this with a minor league umpire. He said there is no way he would award first on this.

So what _would_ his ruling be?

Strike 3

Damn straight, skippy. It is pretty damn hard in pro baseball for a batter not to be awarded first base when he is hit by the pitch. For him not to be awarded first base, he has to do something pretty damn obvious. Sure, the OT Manager will still come out and argue (they will ALWAYS argue when you don't award a HBP after the batter was struck by the pitch), but you (the umpire) will likely be able to tell that the manager's heart won't be in the argument and that he's just "going through the motions."

With that said, if the batter does something obvious enough that you (the umpire) have decided not to award him first base (which, again is very rare in pro ball), then I am going to invoke "the first unwritten rule of (pro) umpiring": don't take the SH*#ty end of the stick. The OT's player screwed up...punish him. I'm calling strike three here,...unless there was absolutely no way the pitch could in any way have become a strike. And if they start arguing the called strike three, I'll just respond, "if your player didn't stick his elbow out there to get hit by the pitch, I might have had a better look at the pitch and made a different call."

Sure, that explanation of why I called "strike three" might end in ejections, but I'm sleeping well that night in the hotel room because I punished the team that screwed up (or, worse, tried to cheat).

Finally, what are they going to protest? My ruling the batter's actions of striking the pitch with his elbow to be intentional AND my ruling the pitch to be a "strike" are judgment calls...they're not protestable. There's no improper application of the rules for them to protest. I'll write my ejection reports, if needed, and then go to bed and have a good night sleep.

Signed,

--former MiLB umpire

Excellent!

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

Signed,

--former MiLB umpire

 

not authoritative. 

 

 

Well, he's not, to be honest. Only the MLBUM (and arguably the PBUCUM) is authoritative for OBR.

 

I did talk about this with one of my regular partners (who is also former MiLB,) and he was wishy-washy about it--"If you can get the strike, get it." This goes back to the crux of the issue; there is no doubt that the pitch was not in the zone when the batter put himself into it. I cannot stand there with a straight face and claim it was in the zone. I went back to what I could defend with the rules, which was a ball. Believe me, if there's any way I could have gotten it, I would have, which is why I'm putting this out there--is there any defensible way to get a strike by rule here?