Hit by Pitch

[johnnyg08]

2009 Preseason Guide...three years of this...I don't remember this rule being so contentious. Anybody else from other places in the country remember why we had three straight years of HBP?

[johnnyg08]

Check that...four years! 

[johnnyg08]

And no mention of HBP in the 2007 Preseason Guide. Interesting.

[johnnyg08]

Referee article from last year:

[MonroeUmp]

25 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

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

Moi? Why do *I* think that Fed changed the rule?? No idea. I accept, support, obey all fed rules, however, as a mere mortal I think many of their rules create more problems than they solve.

The material you've quoted doesn't really move me: "previously he was required to make an attempt to get out of the way." 

I support using rule book language for many reasons, however, we shouldn't use rulebook language as an escape or dodge. If in reality we're sitting in our Association meetings, where this comes up all the time, and someone says, "Keep him in the box if the pitch is legitimate (i.e. not a foot inside the batter's box)  and the batter gives us something to work with." Well if that's the standard we're actually using, and not the rulebook standard, then I have a problem with quoting the rulebook.

[johnnyg08]

I am making no effort to change your mind. I'm saying why not use the rule book terminology? The Federation intentionally changed the rule and make a big enough deal about HBPs for four consecutive years! I think it's our job to use the rule book terminology because it's accurate and consistent. 

[MonroeUmp]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

I am making no effort to change your mind. I'm saying why not use the rule book terminology? The Federation intentionally changed the rule and make a big enough deal about HBPs for four consecutive years! I think it's our job to use the rule book terminology because it's accurate and consistent. 

Consider the key sentence in the article you posted above:

"Rather than focusing on the exact wording [of the NFHS rules], seeking a loophole as an attorney would, an umpire should concentrate on developing the guidelines he will use to make the stay or go decision."

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There are areas of the rule book that Umpires and players HATE and so we are tempted to either act like attorneys, or basically ignore the strict wording of the rule and come up with guidelines. I've mentioned in a previous post what happens in religion and baseball: if the literal text is unworkable, people will "interpret the problem away." 

In these cases, it seems a little disingenuous to quote the rule book when in fact we have interpretive guidelines that we're using. Look: I use teh rule book language to, but I'm just sort of ventilating another side to this.

I don't like it when people are disingenuous to me, and I think in these cases every coach knows that every umpire is different. So this seems like an exception. If the pitch is way inside the box, i.e. a foot inside, and the batter just stays put and "wears it" and we put him on first, is any coach going to complain? If so, just tell him "that pitch was way inside the box, coach." 

 

[johnnyg08]

19 minutes ago, Vumpire said:

Consider the key sentence in the article you posted above:

"Rather than focusing on the exact wording [of the NFHS rules], seeking a loophole as an attorney would, an umpire should concentrate on developing the guidelines he will use to make the stay or go decision."

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There are areas of the rule book that Umpires and players HATE and so we are tempted to either act like attorneys, or basically ignore the strict wording of the rule and come up with guidelines. I've mentioned in a previous post what happens in religion and baseball: if the literal text is unworkable, people will "interpret the problem away." 

In these cases, it seems a little disingenuous to quote the rule book when in fact we have interpretive guidelines that we're using. Look: I use teh rule book language to, but I'm just sort of ventilating another side to this.

I don't like it when people are disingenuous to me, and I think in these cases every coach knows that every umpire is different. So this seems like an exception. If the pitch is way inside the box, i.e. a foot inside, and the batter just stays put and "wears it" and we put him on first, is any coach going to complain? If so, just tell him "that pitch was way inside the box, coach." 

 

Not sure if you've read the entire thread...but here's my 10th post of the thread. We agree don't we?

[MonroeUmp]

22 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Not sure if you've read the entire thread...but here's my 10th post of the thread. We agree don't we?

It sounds like everyone agrees with your standard, we just don't agree on whether that's the rule book language.

The reality that if you took away the 1st base award, HBPs would drop by 90%. So we actually know that regardless of where the pitch is, the batters are "permitting" it most of the time. So by rule, most HBP awards are wrong. That's why I don't like quoting the rulebook in the pitches you're talking about.

One thing that is puzzling: why indeed did NFHS abandon the OBR "make an attempt" language? 

Are you really going to use "he permitted the pitch to touch him!" at NFHS games, but "he didn't make an attempt!" at OBR games?  Seems unlikely, especially if our enforcement is no different between the two.

[maven]

I see 2 distinct issues in this thread.

One is understanding the rule. FED moved away from requiring batters to visibly attempt to avoid being hit because of the quality of batters and pitchers at HS varsity and below. Many batters simply freeze when they see a pitch coming at them, especially a breaking ball they're not sure how to track. In FED, when such a batter is hit by a pitch, he gets his base. If we strictly required an attempt to avoid being hit, he would not (though I teach umpires to enforce the same rule in all youth ball).

Earlier in the thread, someone asserted that 'permitting' is synonymous with 'not making an attempt'. But the case of the freezing batter shows why that isn't so. The "permitting" standard is a lower bar (more instances of being hit by a pitch are penalized by it).

The second issue is communication with coaches (game management). Sometimes, but not always, book language is a useful tool for cutting off argument. In this sort of case, I have used "Coach, in my judgment the batter did not permit the pitch to hit him." That states the rule and makes the rest a judgment call. Coach can disagree with my judgment, but there's no arguing the point (and, for leagues that allow protests, the judgment part of the call is not protestable).

[johnnyg08]

12 hours ago, Vumpire said:

Are you really going to use "he permitted the pitch to touch him!" at NFHS games, but "he didn't make an attempt!" at OBR games?  Seems unlikely, especially if our enforcement is no different between the two.

Yes. I absolutely use the rule book terminology. Why? Because in the slim chance that they actually look it up, they'll see exactly what I'm talking about. 

"Must make an attempt" simply isn't the same. If it was, the Fed would not have changed the language of the rule. 

[wolfe_man]

Interesting enough, I had my first ejection over NOT calling this today. HC started asking in 7th of tie game on every batter, several were HBP after he changed pitchers.

Then, when I said they’re good and done discussing it, he started questioning if they were in the box.

More happened, but I had enough after warning him again and him still continuing to question- he gone.

[MonroeUmp]

On 4/6/2019 at 6:57 AM, johnnyg08 said:

Yes. I absolutely use the rule book terminology. Why? Because in the slim chance that they actually look it up, they'll see exactly what I'm talking about. 

"Must make an attempt" simply isn't the same. If it was, the Fed would not have changed the language of the rule. 

Are you saying that you use a different standard at OBR games? And you use the "make an attempt" language at OBR games?

I'll be honest and say I don't have a different standard, and I doubt that 1 in 1,000 umpires have a difference, or even care. 

[Tborze]

Had 1 the other day. 

Deuce inside. Batter starts his stride and pulls back, which made it look like he moved into it.  Pitch hits him in his knee.  I send him to 1st. DHC, from his dugout says, "come on, that's a perfect example of not attempting to get out of the way". I simply said, "that's not the rule coach". 

Honestly, after calling time, I "thought" about keeping him there for a split second. That's when I knew he was getting 1st. 

You know it when you see it. Taking one off the kneecap isn't very smart if intentional. 

[yawetag]

"deuce inside"?

[Biscuit]

1 hour ago, yawetag said:

"deuce inside"?

I'm guessing breaking ball of some sort (fastball is one, might have a curve, slider or something else on two)

[beerguy55]

On 4/5/2019 at 4:44 PM, Vumpire said:

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.

I had my collar bone broken by a 90 mph fastball.   I can guarantee you that I did not attempt to avoid getting hit AND that I did NOT permit the ball to hit me.   The ball left the pitcher's hand, and then I was sitting on my ass, still holding the bat.  It happened that fast.

[johnnyg08]

 

5 hours ago, Vumpire said:

Are you saying that you use a different standard at OBR games? And you use the "make an attempt" language at OBR games?

I'll be honest and say I don't have a different standard, and I doubt that 1 in 1,000 umpires have a difference, or even care. 

Yes. Because in some instances it is different which is why they changed the rule. 

[noumpere]

17 hours ago, yawetag said:

"deuce inside"?

Yep.  Ever since the invention of the indoor toilet.  thanks for asking.