Hit by Pitch

[wolfe_man]

Okay, I am soliciting opinions here.   I'm seeing more and more players let pitches hit them instead of moving.  This is mostly at the JV level, but I have seen it in Varsity as well.  You hear the bench screaming on any close pitch inside, "Wear it!". 

I think NFHS may want to make this a POE for next year.   My current understanding is unless we have clear "proof" the batter did not attempt to move, then we give him first base.   We give the benefit of the doubt to the batter and unless it was obvious to everyone, including Grandma in the top row, then we give them their base.

My question is are we rewarding some players for not moving fast enough to get out of the way?  It seems to me there is a culture where kids would rather walk than hit anymore. A pitch inside is now seen as an opportunity to let a knee or shoulder take the hit and move to first base.  How much leeway are you guys giving players to move? 

My personal opinion a semi-athletic high-schooler ought to be able to get out of the way or the vast majority of pitches they see.  It's not like it's coming in there at 85+MPH most of the time.   You get hit then, we all know it hurt and you "earned" that walk.  But, in my opinion, we're rewarding batters for failing to move because they are in the box.  They could easily have gotten ought of the way in my opinion, but don't move because they're in the batter's box.  I see more kids each year crowing the plate (legally) and lean in there and then wonder why they get hit. 

I've never called a batter back yet, but I've seen a few where I honestly thought about it.  I'm not sure some of them tried very hard to get out of the way of a 65-70 MPH pitch that they should have been able to avoid with reasonable effort.  I know we are to enforce player safety, but we're getting into a gray area in my thinking.

What are your thoughts please?  I'm talking NFHS only please.

Thanks!

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, wolfe_man said:

Okay, I am soliciting opinions here.   I'm seeing more and more players let pitches hit them instead of moving.  This is mostly at the JV level, but I have seen it in Varsity as well.  You hear the bench screaming on any close pitch inside, "Wear it!". 

I think NFHS may want to make this a POE for next year.   My current understanding is unless we have clear "proof" the batter did not attempt to move, then we give him first base.   We give the benefit of the doubt to the batter and unless it was obvious to everyone, including Grandma in the top row, then we give them their base.

My question is are we rewarding some players for not moving fast enough to get out of the way?  It seems to me there is a culture where kids would rather walk than hit anymore. A pitch inside is now seen as an opportunity to let a knee or shoulder take the hit and move to first base.  How much leeway are you guys giving players to move? 

My personal opinion a semi-athletic high-schooler ought to be able to get out of the way or the vast majority of pitches they see.  It's not like it's coming in there at 85+MPH most of the time.   You get hit then, we all know it hurt and you "earned" that walk.  But, in my opinion, we're rewarding batters for failing to move because they are in the box.  They could easily have gotten ought of the way in my opinion, but don't move because they're in the batter's box.  I see more kids each year crowing the plate (legally) and lean in there and then wonder why they get hit. 

I've never called a batter back yet, but I've seen a few where I honestly thought about it.  I'm not sure some of them tried very hard to get out of the way of a 65-70 MPH pitch that they should have been able to avoid with reasonable effort.  I know we are to enforce player safety, but we're getting into a gray area in my thinking.

What are your thoughts please?  I'm talking NFHS only please.

Thanks!

If you can say he allowed the pitch to hit him you keep him in the box unless it was ball four or strike three. Yes I have seen guys take ball four for a HBP:)

[wolfe_man]

Thanks for the reply.  I guess I don't want go hunting trouble, but I'm getting close to saying something out of principle.  Some try to move, but very slowly... too slowly in my opinion for a 14-15 year old.  They ought to be able to get out of the way of most of these pitches.

I'll take your advice.

[maven]

I generally have 2 or 3 per season where I judge that the batter permitted the pitch to hit him (HS varsity). I kill it and keep him in the box.

MLB has increased enforcement of it as well, so everyone sees it from time to time. I don't get too much flak. (Of course, I don't tolerate much flak anyway, so there's that.  )

[wolfe_man]

27 minutes ago, maven said:

I generally have 2 or 3 per season where I judge that the batter permitted the pitch to hit him (HS varsity). I kill it and keep him in the box.

MLB has increased enforcement of it as well, so everyone sees it from time to time. I don't get too much flak. (Of course, I don't tolerate much flak anyway, so there's that.  )

Thanks maven.  I guess I was seeking confirmation that I won't be the only one doing it.   I will definitely start nailing this when I see it and feel it was obvious.   I'm tolerating less flak each year as I gain experience and understanding.

[Senor Azul]

According to the 2016 BRD, FED made the hit by pitch a POE in 2005 and 2008. It also shows the following interpretation:

FED Official Interpretation: McNeely:  Generally speaking, the batter will be awarded first unless he tries to get hit by the pitch. He may not permit the pitch to hit him, but: movement to avoid the pitch may or may not be such an indication.

2005 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 11: F1 throws a fastball that tails down the middle of the batter’s box. The pitch freezes B1, who subsequently is hit by the pitch. RULING: The ball is dead. It will be umpire judgment as to whether B1 permitted the pitch to hit him. If, in the judgment of the plate umpire, B1 could not react to the pitch, he will be awarded first base. If the plate umpire judges that B1 allowed the pitch to hit him, a ball will be awarded to B2’s count and he will remain at bat. (7-3-4, 5-1-1a, 8-1-1d-1)

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 8.1.1 Situation D:  When may a batter be hit by a pitch and not be awarded first base? RULING:  (a) When the pitch is a strike; (b) when the batter permits the ball to touch him; (c) with no runners on base, the pitch is illegal and is not ball four or (d) when the batter attempts to hit the pitch.

[Forest Ump]

Don't let them steal first. Leave them in the box. Prepare to defend your call.

[beerguy55]

There's a balance.  I do coach my players on how to get hit by pitch, but not for the reasons you think.

The first instinct many kids have is to protect themselves - so they throw their hand out.  Now, instead of a ball hitting them harmlessly on the rump, they have a couple of broken fingers.

So, we teach them to keep their hands on the bat - to get out of the way.

Then they awkwardly jump forwards, backwards or upwards, or duck.   And now the ball hits their wrist, knee, ribs, head, or bat.

So, we teach them to turn their body.   If you're going to get hit, it's better to take it on the meatier parts of your body, and minimize the chances the pitch accidentally hits the bat.   For the most part, this isn't a tactic to get on base...it's simply about minimizing the chance of injury.   

As a result, over a few years, we alter the kids' instinctual reaction to a fastball coming at their body.  The upside is less hurt fingers, knees and wrists.  The drawback is sometimes it looks like they're trying to get hit.

I don't have a fundamental problem with preventing a batter from stealing first.   I simply ask for it to be blindingly obvious.  eg. my grandmother could have avoided that pitch

I don't want to give a free base - but I also don't want to give a free pass for a really awful pitch.

I'd also put a higher standard on a pitch that hit the body, rather than a pitch that hit the elbow pad....the difference between a pitch that is 2 inches vs 2 feet off the plate.  Leaving an elbow pad in the way of a borderline pitch is, for me, far more egregious than turning your hip or shoulder into a pitch in the outer half of the batter's box.  

[wolfe_man]

@beerguy55 I agree with your comments. Especially about it being blatantly obvious to Grandma.  

My frustration is with the guys who stick out a leg or shoulder to take a soft pitch instead of getting out of the way.   In my opinion, they could just have easily have stepped back and avoided the pitch.  It would be a ball either way, but I don't want to let them "steal" first as the saying goes.

In the end, I need to enforce player safety, but also I keep thinking about them making a travesty of the game. I know travesty is too harsh of a word for this situation, but that's not fair play when you're trying to cheat your way onto base.  If you can avoid a pitch, then you need to do so.   I'm talking about the minority of cases here, but it's something that I see growing from year-to-year, so I want to make sure I'm enforcing the rule properly and being fair to both batter and pitcher.

Thanks for replying and adding to the conversation.

[yawetag]

I think it's safe to say that no umpire is going to keep a batter at the plate who makes any effort to protect himself or get out of the way.

The issues are the ones that don't move a muscle or turn their body into the pitch.

[johnnyg08]

On 4/1/2019 at 10:02 AM, wolfe_man said:

Okay, I am soliciting opinions here.   I'm seeing more and more players let pitches hit them instead of moving.  This is mostly at the JV level, but I have seen it in Varsity as well.  You hear the bench screaming on any close pitch inside, "Wear it!". 

I think NFHS may want to make this a POE for next year.   My current understanding is unless we have clear "proof" the batter did not attempt to move, then we give him first base.   We give the benefit of the doubt to the batter and unless it was obvious to everyone, including Grandma in the top row, then we give them their base.

My question is are we rewarding some players for not moving fast enough to get out of the way?  It seems to me there is a culture where kids would rather walk than hit anymore. A pitch inside is now seen as an opportunity to let a knee or shoulder take the hit and move to first base.  How much leeway are you guys giving players to move? 

My personal opinion a semi-athletic high-schooler ought to be able to get out of the way or the vast majority of pitches they see.  It's not like it's coming in there at 85+MPH most of the time.   You get hit then, we all know it hurt and you "earned" that walk.  But, in my opinion, we're rewarding batters for failing to move because they are in the box.  They could easily have gotten ought of the way in my opinion, but don't move because they're in the batter's box.  I see more kids each year crowing the plate (legally) and lean in there and then wonder why they get hit. 

I've never called a batter back yet, but I've seen a few where I honestly thought about it.  I'm not sure some of them tried very hard to get out of the way of a 65-70 MPH pitch that they should have been able to avoid with reasonable effort.  I know we are to enforce player safety, but we're getting into a gray area in my thinking.

What are your thoughts please?  I'm talking NFHS only please.

Thanks!

I think the words in NFHS are that "the batter shall not permit the pitch to hit him" So...you have to judge....did the batter permit the pitch to hit him or not? 

Remember, the pitch has no business in the batter's box. My advice...if he's not intentionally trying to get hit by the pitch (chicken wing, bending knee into the path of the pitch, etc...) send him. 

If defenses don't want us sending batters on HBP, keep the pitches out of the batter's box. 

 

[Thatsnotyou]

Standing as still as a statue on a curve ball to let it hit your arm is permitting it to hit you, I don’t need them to intentionally move into it to get hit. The batter’s box is only three inches off the plate, not thirteen.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Thatsnotyou said:

Standing as still as a statue on a curve ball to let it hit your arm is permitting it to hit you, I don’t need them to intentionally move into it to get hit. The batter’s box is only three inches off the plate, not thirteen.

As long as we don't explain to the coach that "he has to make an attempt" I'm good with that. He can't permit the pitch to hit him is different from must make an attempt. 

Consider the NFHS Interpretation from 2005:

 

[Thatsnotyou]

11 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

As long as we don't explain to the coach that "he has to make an attempt" I'm good with that. He can't permit the pitch to hit him is different from must make an attempt. 

Consider the NFHS Interpretation from 2005:

 

I can’t quote the rule book on everything, but this is the rule I’ve always quoted. I use the word “permit” one way or another. Never used “it was in the batters box” with a coach. Also am able to quickly shut down the “he has to make an attempt argument”. This is one where I think using the language is important. I cringe when I hear my partner say “it was in the batters box”. That’s irrelevant. That’s not the rule.

[johnnyg08]

12 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said:

I can’t quote the rule book on everything, but this is the rule I’ve always quoted. I use the word “permit” one way or another. Never used “it was in the batters box” with a coach. Also am able to quickly shut down the “he has to make an attempt argument”. This is one where I think using the language is important. I cringe when I hear my partner say “it was in the batters box”. That’s irrelevant. That’s not the rule.

If I were your assigner, I could support you on that. 

[Kevin_K]

12 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

Standing as still as a statue on a curve ball to let it hit your arm is permitting it to hit you, I don’t need them to intentionally move into it to get hit. The batter’s box is only three inches off the plate, not thirteen.

The batters box is six inches from the plate. Just saying......

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

The batters box is six inches from the plate. Just saying......

I’ve seen them 0 inches to 8 inches. Which is why sometimes at some places you don’t even wipe your plate shoes if you haven’t prepped them before. They are gonna be covered with dirt and chalk when you wipe out the bad lines. 

[maven]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I’ve seen them 0 inches to 8 inches.

Are we still discussing batters boxes?

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Are we still discussing batters boxes?

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

The batters box is six inches from the plate. Just saying......

The box is also 54 inches from the plate.  ie. the ball could be four feet off the plate and still hit a batter that's inside the box.   Whether or not it's the rule is beside the point.  Common sense needs to prevail.   A batter who lets the ball hit his elbow guard, 4-6 inches off the plate, where he only need move his elbow a couple of inches to avoid being hit is one thing.  A batter who takes one on the ass by turning and bracing for a pitch that was heading straight for the center of his body is another.  "Permitting yourself to be hit" and "accepting the inevitable" can be a very fine line.   Where you can't read the batter's mind, and intent isn't obvious, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use the quality of the pitch to help sway your argument - the closer to the plate, the more benefit of the doubt I'd give the pitcher.

[Thatsnotyou]

37 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The box is also 54 inches from the plate.  ie. the ball could be four feet off the plate and still hit a batter that's inside the box.   Whether or not it's the rule is beside the point.  Common sense needs to prevail.   A batter who lets the ball hit his elbow guard, 4-6 inches off the plate, where he only need move his elbow a couple of inches to avoid being hit is one thing.  A batter who takes one on the ass by turning and bracing for a pitch that was heading straight for the center of his body is another.  "Permitting yourself to be hit" and "accepting the inevitable" can be a very fine line.   Where you can't read the batter's mind, and intent isn't obvious, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use the quality of the pitch to help sway your argument - the closer to the plate, the more benefit of the doubt I'd give the pitcher.

Plus you not only have coaches coaching this, but you have the dugout encouraging guys to get hit constantly - and not always in a joking way. “Wear it” is said game in, game out. Guys are looking for this more and more. We have to nail it when it’s there, not hide behind a simple philosophy of “well, the pitch was in the batter’s box”. 

[MonroeUmp]

 

On 4/3/2019 at 6:19 AM, johnnyg08 said:

As long as we don't explain to the coach that "he has to make an attempt" I'm good with that. He can't permit the pitch to hit him is different from must make an attempt. 

 

How is it different? i.e. "permitting the ball to touch him" = "not [making an attempt to avoid getting hit". Those two statements like an exact equality.

You're saying that "Joe, he permitted the ball to touch him" would sound more umpirish? Less likely to start a dispute about what kind of attempt is needed?

My problem is the pitch that is somewhat off the plate and the batter could easily have avoided it but just stands still. You can say "he permitted" but in fact it's the absence of any effort that is our practical distinction.

[johnnyg08]

45 minutes ago, Vumpire said:

 

How is it different? i.e. "permitting the ball to touch him" = "not [making an attempt to avoid getting hit". Those two statements like an exact equality.

You're saying that "Joe, he permitted the ball to touch him" would sound more umpirish? Less likely to start a dispute about what kind of attempt is needed?

My problem is the pitch that is somewhat off the plate and the batter could easily have avoided it but just stands still. You can say "he permitted" but in fact it's the absence of any effort that is our practical distinction.

Because under NFHS rules the batter does not 'have to necessarily make an attempt' in many cases, sure, it's the same. I wouldn't advise stating "he has to make an attempt" because that isn't the rule. 

Why not use rule book terminology? 

 

[johnnyg08]

@Vumpire Why do you think the Federation intentionally changed the verbiage of the rule in 2011? 

[johnnyg08]

NFHS 2010 Preseason Guide: