2019 Changes

[Kevin_K]

https://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/article/2018-08-16/college-baseball-video-review-challenge-system-approved

It seemed as though it would only be a matter of time before the IBB and no fake to third would be implemented. The changes on pitchers' positioning is going to be problematic unless there is a universal effort to enforce the new standards.

The HBP and runners staying at their bases changes are the most interesting to me. I wonder what the penalty will be for runners leaving their bases during a defensive conference.

[Richvee]

• To be considered in a wind-up position, a pitcher must stand with his chest and shoulders generally facing the batter, with the pivot foot on or in front of and touching the pitcher’s plate. The pitcher’s free foot must be touching or be behind the plane of the front edge of the pitching plate.

Wow. That's the FED rule. Like you say, enforcement will be key. 

[zoops]

I'm assuming this one will change the guidance of allowing the catcher to block the base if the incoming throw is within 60' of home?

Other rules changes approved include:

• Defensive players will not be allowed to block a base without possession of the ball at any time

[noumpere]

As always, it will depend on the examples they give and any difference (if any) between "block" and "move to receive a throw" and "position to receive a throw" and "provide any / complete access" etc.

[Richvee]

30 minutes ago, zoops said:

I'm assuming this one will change the guidance of allowing the catcher to block the base if the incoming throw is within 60' of home?

Other rules changes approved include:

• Defensive players will not be allowed to block a base without possession of the ball at any time

This too, seems to say they're aligning more with FED. Guess it will depend on the actual wording, and interps, as noumpere has stated.  

[Jimurray]

59 minutes ago, Richvee said:

• To be considered in a wind-up position, a pitcher must stand with his chest and shoulders generally facing the batter, with the pivot foot on or in front of and touching the pitcher’s plate. The pitcher’s free foot must be touching or be behind the plane of the front edge of the pitching plate.

Wow. That's the FED rule. Like you say, enforcement will be key. 

That's more restrictive than the FED rule. I've seen hybrid pitchers adapt their foot positions to comply with the FED rule and still still have their chest facing more towards the foul line.

[zoops]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:37 PM, Jimurray said:

That's more restrictive than the FED rule. I've seen hybrid pitchers adapt their foot positions to comply with the FED rule and still still have their chest facing more towards the foul line.

Will be interesting to see how strictly they want this enforced.  I'd say at least 75% of the pitchers in the NCAA games I worked this past spring would have been violating this rule.  Could be a real pain as whiny coaches will say a pitcher is violating the rule even if it's only by a couple inches.  

[Jimurray]

14 hours ago, zoops said:

Will be interesting to see how strictly they want this enforced.  I'd say at least 75% of the pitchers in the NCAA games I worked this past spring would have been violating this rule.  Could be a real pain as whiny coaches will say a pitcher is violating the rule even if it's only by a couple inches.  

Yes, I don't know who the rules committee is comprised of ( @lawump), but I can't picture most college pitching coaches being happy with this. If umpires are involved it's worse dumbing down than FED. If coaches are involved they must not know what their pitching coach is doing. But once again "how strictly enforced" come into play. I posted a current rule less strictly enforced CWS pitcher earlier this summer. Why don't they go MLB one step further? Coach, runner or umpire, raise your hand and ask what the pitcher intends if you are not sure. Then he declares for you. Would someone please post a current college pitcher from whose stance who I wouldn't know  whether he was going to set or windup?

Edited to add: I think the rules committee is comprised of ADs and coaches with the rules editor being advisory only with no vote.

[Haid D' Salaami]

On 8/17/2018 at 3:36 PM, Richvee said:

This too, seems to say they're aligning more with FED. Guess it will depend on the actual wording, and interps, as noumpere has stated.  

I think More MLB.. the catchers in MLB cant block the base till they have the ball.

[Richvee]

33 minutes ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

I think More MLB.. the catchers in MLB cant block the base till they have the ball.

But MLB can move there if the flight of the ball takes them into the path. The "in the ac of fielding" caveat. FED has no such provision. That's why I say we need to see exactly how NCAA writes it. 

[Haid D' Salaami]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

But MLB can move there if the flight of the ball takes them into the path. The "in the ac of fielding" caveat. FED has no such provision. That's why I say we need to see exactly how NCAA writes it. 

personally, just like now.. if the flight takes the Catcher's into the runners path, then its just nothing

[JSam21]

So I was at a camp this weekend and we were applying the 2019 rules... only had one dead ball strike... for strike 3... and the coach came unglued. I just have a feeling that we are going to get a lot of practice on our report writing the first few weeks of the season. 

[Minnz]

On 10/1/2018 at 1:58 PM, JSam21 said:

So I was at a camp this weekend and we were applying the 2019 rules... only had one dead ball strike... for strike 3... and the coach came unglued. I just have a feeling that we are going to get a lot of practice on our report writing the first few weeks of the season. 

This one worries me. Seems hard when a ball it so out of the zone, even when a kid doesn't move to award a strike. I will miss the ability to award a ball instead of the base.

Good seeing you this weekend btw.

[MidAmUmp]

1 hour ago, Minnz said:

This one worries me. Seems hard when a ball it so out of the zone, even when a kid doesn't move to award a strike. I will miss the ability to award a ball instead of the base.

Good seeing you this weekend btw.

That’s not the rule. The only way we’re calling a strike is if the batter intentionally hits the ball. If the the ball hits the batter, he gets first regardless of if he makes an attempt to get out of the way or not. 

Batter gets hit while making an attempt to get out of the way = go to 1st

Batter stands there like a statue and lets the ball hit him = go to 1st

Batter sticks out a part of his body and hits the ball = Keep him at the plate and add a strike to the count. 

[umpstu]

14 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

That’s not the rule. The only way we’re calling a strike is if the batter intentionally hits the ball. If the the ball hits the batter, he gets first regardless of if he makes an attempt to get out of the way or not. 

Batter gets hit while making an attempt to get out of the way = go to 1st

Batter stands there like a statue and lets the ball hit him = go to 1st

Batter sticks out a part of his body and hits the ball = Keep him at the plate and add a strike to the count. 

What if he just rolls to take a curve in the back?

[grayhawk]

8 minutes ago, umpstu said:

What if he just rolls to take a curve in the back?

Sounds to me like the ball hit him and not the other way around.  Award him 1B.

[MidAmUmp]

46 minutes ago, umpstu said:

What if he just rolls to take a curve in the back?

Did he hit the ball or did the ball hit him?

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

That’s not the rule. The only way we’re calling a strike is if the batter intentionally hits the ball. If the the ball hits the batter, he gets first regardless of if he makes an attempt to get out of the way or not. 

Batter gets hit while making an attempt to get out of the way = go to 1st

Batter stands there like a statue and lets the ball hit him = go to 1st

Batter sticks out a part of his body and hits the ball = Keep him at the plate and add a strike to the count. 

I love this. Finally a definitive no-nonsense, common sense way to call this play.  

[Jimurray]

53 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I love this. Finally a definitive no-nonsense, common sense way to call this play.  

It would be, but await the actual rule verbiage and the following video interps. 

[Richvee]

10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It would be, but await the actual rule verbiage and the following video interps. 

if it's as MidAmUmp says, then it seems straight forward. 

[beerguy55]

On 10/4/2018 at 3:36 PM, MidAmUmp said:

That’s not the rule. The only way we’re calling a strike is if the batter intentionally hits the ball. If the the ball hits the batter, he gets first regardless of if he makes an attempt to get out of the way or not. 

Batter gets hit while making an attempt to get out of the way = go to 1st

Batter stands there like a statue and lets the ball hit him = go to 1st

Batter sticks out a part of his body and hits the ball = Keep him at the plate and add a strike to the count. 

 

On 10/5/2018 at 8:37 AM, Richvee said:

if it's as MidAmUmp says, then it seems straight forward. 

I'm not so sure of that.

 

The rule doesn't appear to "say" what MidAmUmp suggests....if that's what it meant, great, but otherwise this is going to create a lot of problems.

It only mentions batters who move to intentionally get hit....I interpret this to mean to move into a pitch, on purpose, that would otherwise not hit him....then it's a dead ball strike.

I suspect a batter who makes no move to avoid the pitch could still be ruled a dead ball ball....no?   They didn't move to get hit...but they made no attempt to avoid either.  Otherwise, now you have the question of a batter who has all the time in the world to avoid a pitch, and simply rolls his body a few inches so it hits something meatier - you calling that a strike?   You giving him his base?  Neither is ideal.  But if left with only those two options I suspect you're going to err to giving him his base - and is that what we really want?

I suspect most umps will err to giving the base - the intent to get hit will have to be egregious to give the strike.  At least, today, if the ump "errs" and rules the batter doesn't get first at least he's getting a ball added to his count (if the pitch wasn't in the strike zone).

[MidAmUmp]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

I'm not so sure of that.

 

The rule doesn't appear to "say" what MidAmUmp suggests....if that's what it meant, great, but otherwise this is going to create a lot of problems.

It only mentions batters who move to intentionally get hit....I interpret this to mean to move into a pitch, on purpose, that would otherwise not hit him....then it's a dead ball strike.

I suspect a batter who makes no move to avoid the pitch could still be ruled a dead ball ball....no?   They didn't move to get hit...but they made no attempt to avoid either.  Otherwise, now you have the question of a batter who has all the time in the world to avoid a pitch, and simply rolls his body a few inches so it hits something meatier - you calling that a strike?   You giving him his base?  Neither is ideal.  But if left with only those two options I suspect you're going to err to giving him his base - and is that what we really want?

I suspect most umps will err to giving the base - the intent to get hit will have to be egregious to give the strike.  At least, today, if the ump "errs" and rules the batter doesn't get first at least he's getting a ball added to his count (if the pitch wasn't in the strike zone).

It will be explained in detail at the meetings in January. 

From the camps I’ve worked this fall, here’s what I can tell you...

Did the batter hit the ball or did the ball hit the batter? 

If the batter freezes, give him 1st.

If the batter turns and the ball hits him, give him 1st. 

If the batter sticks out a body part and allows himself to get hit by the ball, keep him at the plate, call it a strike.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, MidAmUmp said:

It will be explained in detail at the meetings in January. 

From the camps I’ve worked this fall, here’s what I can tell you...

Did the batter hit the ball or did the ball hit the batter? 

If the batter freezes, give him 1st.

If the batter turns and the ball hits him, give him 1st. 

If the batter sticks out a body part and allows himself to get hit by the ball, keep him at the plate, call it a strike.

Will there be an "epidemic" again? http://baseballnews.com/hit-pitch-epidemic-threatens-game-integrity/

But given the variable judgements using the current rule the change seems to make it easier on the umpire.

[BT_Blue]

@tpatience, did this come up at the advanced BBUC this past weekend? Having Scott Taylor there to explain it probably would have been really helpful. Same question to anyone that has attended any of the UCU clinics.

[tpatience]

17 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

@tpatience, did this come up at the advanced BBUC this past weekend? Having Scott Taylor there to explain it probably would have been really helpful. Same question to anyone that has attended any of the UCU clinics.

It was mentioned but we did not go into detail. They seemed to say that it would be explained more in detail in Phoenix at the NCAA meeting