Strike or HBP

[J-Brux]

In an attempt to avoid being hitting by the pitch the batter turns the wrong way and their bat crosses the plate and is still hit by the pitch, strike or HBP?

[Senor Azul]

Whether the batter swung or not is entirely based on umpire judgment. There's really not much in the way of guidelines provided by any of the rule sets.

For FED its case play 10.1.3 Situation only offers this bit of help--

The umpire shall determine whether or not the batter's movement carried the barrel of the bat past the batter's body in an attempt to strike the ball.

The NCAA in its rule 2-39 tells us that such a swing is a strike if the barrel head of the bat passes the batter's front hip.

Neither of these interpretations really help or apply in determining a swing in your scenario though. The NCAA also has an official interpretation which might be relevant.

The half swing guidelines do not apply to a batter who pivots in the box with his arms close to his body (as opposed to extended).

So did your batter extend his arms? If not, then it probably wasn't a swing.

[pnewton]

Umpire needs to judge if the batter was trying to hit the ball or not. OBR give no more specific advice or guidance on this.

[maven]

1 hour ago, pnewton said:

Umpire needs to judge if the batter was trying to hit the ball or not. OBR give no more specific advice or guidance on this.

I agree.

But no more guidance is needed. It's not difficult to distinguish an offer from a dodge.

And when coach complains, we say: "Coach, in my judgment, he was dodging the pitch, not offering at it."

And that ends the discussion, because we never argue judgment with coaches (right?). Coach is entitled to his opinion, and it doesn't matter if he thinks we're wrong.

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, J-Brux said:

In an attempt to avoid being hitting by the pitch the batter turns the wrong way and their bat crosses the plate and is still hit by the pitch, strike or HBP?

As already answered, completely up to the umpire as to whether they "attempted to strike at the ball". Sr. Azul's tip as to the hands being extended is a clue, but not an end all be all.

 

 

Anecdotal but, in my experience, a lot of times when the batter goes to swing and the pitch runs more up and in than originally expected, you'll have a legitimate attempt to swing (even if at the very end it was survival mode). It's not unreasonable to get a strike on a HBP in this scenario.

In contrast, you see this fairly often in bunt attempts where the pitcher reacts with a pitch inside. In a flailing attempt to protect themselves and/or avoid being hit, the bat might swing forward and around. In a play like this I would have a hard calling that an attempt to swing.

But in both these simplified examples, it's still up to umpire judgement, and they could go either way.

 

edit: another note is that these can sometimes be difficult for PU to see because they often can involve a catcher hopping up in the way and blocking out the PU.

[ArchAngel72]

LL has a similar stance as in Did the batter attempt to hit the ball?

I always have told coaches nope he was trying to get out of the way of the ball, Unless of course they are the few kids that actually have swung and missed at something right at them.

 

I actually had a kid with a ball pitched behind him ( a good 8 inches behind him)  shot his hand out in defense and in doing so put hit in the path of the ball which would not have hit him at all if he had not done so.   I told him nope stay right there. That was a ball and the coach argued it was defensive.. I said yes it was but he did so out of the back of the box and had he not the ball would have passed right by.  So I cannot judge he was defending himself he actually stuck his hand in the way of the pitch.  Sorry coach its a ball.  batter stays here.

He ended up getting a base hit so at 1st coach was upset then he was happy.. /shrug

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

8 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The half swing guidelines do not apply to a batter who pivots in the box with his arms close to his body (as opposed to extended).

So did your batter extend his arms? If not, then it probably wasn't a swing.

Very good advice, S.A.  Arm extension is an excellent guideline.  I've seen situations where the batter, holding the bat close to his chest, charged with a swing as he was merely turning away from a pitch.

[beerguy55]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:15 AM, J-Brux said:

In an attempt to avoid being hitting by the pitch the batter turns the wrong way and their bat crosses the plate and is still hit by the pitch, strike or HBP?

The key words in the definition of a strike are "struck at".

Those words imply intent.  Forget about any notion of breaking the wrists, crossing the plane, or any other definition that TV announcers throw at you.  Did that batter WANT to strike at the ball?

 

 

NOTE: don't confuse this with a check swing, where the batter certainly changed his intent....there WAS intent to hit the ball, and the batter changed his mind - umpire judgment to whether that happened in time.   In the original question there likely was never any intent.

21 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I actually had a kid with a ball pitched behind him ( a good 8 inches behind him)  shot his hand out in defense and in doing so put hit in the path of the ball which would not have hit him at all if he had not done so.   I told him nope stay right there. That was a ball and the coach argued it was defensive.. I said yes it was but he did so out of the back of the box and had he not the ball would have passed right by.

This is a terrible take.

[ArchAngel72]

23 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

This is a terrible take.

 

Why the ball was 8 inches behind the kid and he actually stuck his hand out in front of it almost in a catching like motion.

He therefore in my judgement was not acting defensively because he moved into its path not out of it and by my judgement it was not in the batters box it was behind the batters box. 

[beerguy55]

34 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

Why the ball was 8 inches behind the kid and he actually stuck his hand out in front of it almost in a catching like motion.

He therefore in my judgement was not acting defensively because he moved into its path not out of it and by my judgement it was not in the batters box it was behind the batters box. 

Your original words were "shot his hand out in defense".  So which is it?  Defensive or not?  Was his intent to be hit by the pitch, or was his reaction instinctive?

If it was genuinely a defensive gesture then it's no different than hopping backwards, as a reaction, and unintentionally bringing yourself into the path of the pitch (which also would/should be a free base for the batter)

If he reached out to intentionally simply catch the ball then you might have a case.

If the pitch is behind the batter you need to be giving the batter a LOT of leeway. 

In short, as long as the pitch isn't a strike the batter must make a concerted decision to allow the ball to hit him...he must WANT to be hit by the pitch to not be given first base. There must be intent. Intent can mean moving, on purpose, to get hit...and it can mean staying in place to allow yourself to be hit by a pitch otherwise easily avoidable (and you've seen the standard MLB applies on this one...it very rarely, if ever, gets called - even on a 60 mph pitch thrown by a position player an adult professional athlete is not expected to get out of the way)

 

Freezing (ie. deer in headlights), making an incorrect instinctive reaction that causes the pitch to hit him, or bracing himself for an inevitable impact, are all scenarios that do not qualify as intentional action, or inaction, by the batter.  Don't reward the pitcher for an atrocious pitch.

[SH0102]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

even on a 60 mph pitch thrown by a position player an adult professional athlete is not expected to get out of the way)

I agree with what you’re saying beerguy in the rest of your post(s) but you can not compare HS to ncaa/OBR on this.

In NCAA/OBR, if the pitch is in the batters box, by rule, the batter does not have to attempt to avoid it, they only can not “go get hit” by moving into it.

HS rules say batter must attempt to avoid being hit, period, but is given a lot of latitude on balls they have little time to react to (fastballs) whereas a slow curve they must at least try to avoid 

[Jimurray]

31 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

 

HS rules say batter must attempt to avoid being hit, period, but is given a lot of latitude on balls they have little time to react to (fastballs) whereas a slow curve they must at least try to avoid 

Where does FED say that?

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Your original words were "shot his hand out in defense".  So which is it?  Defensive or not?  Was his intent to be hit by the pitch, or was his reaction instinctive?

If it was genuinely a defensive gesture then it's no different than hopping backwards, as a reaction, and unintentionally bringing yourself into the path of the pitch (which also would/should be a free base for the batter)

If he reached out to intentionally simply catch the ball then you might have a case.

If the pitch is behind the batter you need to be giving the batter a LOT of leeway. 

In short, as long as the pitch isn't a strike the batter must make a concerted decision to allow the ball to hit him...he must WANT to be hit by the pitch to not be given first base. There must be intent. Intent can mean moving, on purpose, to get hit...and it can mean staying in place to allow yourself to be hit by a pitch otherwise easily avoidable (and you've seen the standard MLB applies on this one...it very rarely, if ever, gets called - even on a 60 mph pitch thrown by a position player an adult professional athlete is not expected to get out of the way)

 

Freezing (ie. deer in headlights), making an incorrect instinctive reaction that causes the pitch to hit him, or bracing himself for an inevitable impact, are all scenarios that do not qualify as intentional action, or inaction, by the batter.  Don't reward the pitcher for an atrocious pitch.

 

I do believe it was a defensive reflex yes.  But it was a defensive reflex BEHIND him.  He was not in the path of the ball and he reached out and nearly caught it.  I will not reward anyone for doing that EVER.

The pitch was well behind him and he reached out in an action that purposely put his hand in front of it and it never would have hit him if he had not.  That is to me akin to someone sticking an elbow out in the strike zone to get hit.  if the ball was on path to hit him I would have awarded him 1st base but it was clearly behind him and not even "close" 

[SH0102]

46 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Where does FED say that?

Which part? The part about making an attempt is in there, the other part is good practice.  If a P zings a fastball 2 feet inside, I’m not rewarding the pitcher bc the batter froze 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, SH0102 said:

I agree with what you’re saying beerguy in the rest of your post(s) but you can not compare HS to ncaa/OBR on this.

In NCAA/OBR, if the pitch is in the batters box, by rule, the batter does not have to attempt to avoid it, they only can not “go get hit” by moving into it.

 

I can't comment on NCAA, but OBR says:

He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball

In spite of that language, MLB umps do not deny walks on this...they want an intentional lean...even in the extreme position player scenarios I mentioned.  The video evidence is pretty clear on this.  Happy to view any video you can find where a MLB batter was denied first base for letting a pitch hit them (as opposed to leaning into one).

[beerguy55]

47 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

I do believe it was a defensive reflex yes.  But it was a defensive reflex BEHIND him.  He was not in the path of the ball and he reached out and nearly caught it.  I will not reward anyone for doing that EVER.

The pitch was well behind him and he reached out in an action that purposely put his hand in front of it and it never would have hit him if he had not.  That is to me akin to someone sticking an elbow out in the strike zone to get hit.  if the ball was on path to hit him I would have awarded him 1st base but it was clearly behind him and not even "close" 

Then you are not doing your job.

It is not akin to someone sticking his elbow into the strike zone to get hit...unless you determined his intent was to get hit (not to mention the fact that getting hit in the strike zone doesn't matter at all if you meant it or not).  If it was a reaction, it was defensive...in his mind he likely thought he was protecting himself (yes, young players do need to be taught to not get their hands in the way, for other reasons...but not to be punished by umpires)

If I hop backwards and unintentionally end up moving myself into the pitch that otherwise would have passed behind me, I get my base.  THAT is what your situation is akin to.  Unless you're saying you wouldn't award someone first base in that scenario either...

[The Man in Blue]

Depending on the actual scenario, but I am with @ArchAngel72 that moving into the path of a pitch is not an attempt to move out of the way of the pitch. 

Now, I am going to grant some latitude ... a breaking ball where the kid moves out of the original path but into the new path?  Yeah, an effort to get out of the way.

A kid who panics and steps into the path of a ball that isn't changing direction?  Sorry you panicked, but that isn't an attempt to avoid getting hit.

I'm an evil SOB, but when a kid doesn't move at all, I love calling, "TIME!  STAY RIGHT HERE!"  Then the argument begins.  My pat response is: "Coach, nothing says it has to be a good attempt.  Nothing says it has to be a "big" attempt.  Nothing says it has to be a successful attempt.  But it does say he cannot permit the ball to touch him.  Doing nothing is permitting it to touch you." 

NFHS: 7-3-4 "Batting Infractions -- A Batter Shall Not: ... Permit a pitched ball to touch him.  Penalty: The batter remains at bat (pitch is a ball or a strike) unless pitch was a third strike or ball four."  

@beerguy55 posted the OBR language already.  Attempt to avoid is required.

NCAA 8-2-d does not require an attempt to avoid if the pitch is in the batter's box.  If the pitch is not in the batter's box, the batter still has to make an effort to avoid it.

8-2-d(a) states: " . . . if the batter moves to intentionally get hit or freezes to allow a pitch that is not within the batter's box to hit them ... the batter is not awarded first base." 

 

What is interesting about the NCAA language is that it does not specify if the ball must be entirely in the batter's box.  Many softball codes that have adopted this state it must be entirely in the batter's box.  The use of "within" leads me to an interpretation of entirely in, but I may be wrong on that.

 

 

[SH0102]

Problem with the freeze language is the rule is written to say they can’t freeze for the purpose of letting it hit them.

So you have to judge if a KID, with a fastball bearing down on him, intentionally froze so as to be hit.

If I am 100% sure they did, sure, stay here.  But getting locked up is a real thing. It’s same reason people freeze in times of tragedy and panic (car coming at them for ex). 
 

So to my point to JimM, I do not reward a pitcher for throwing 2 feet inside unless I’m sure the batter wanted to be hit

[ArchAngel72]

@beerguy55   My judgement was that he attempted intentionally to catch the pitch and it was 8 inches behind him and a non breaking ball. 

You cannot in any level reach out and put your hand in the path of a ball which would never hit you and expect to gain 1st base.

 

Let me emphasis this.  If the batter had not reached out for the ball it NEVER would have hit him. 

I am not penalizing the pitcher and or defense for a batter doing that.

Now if he had reached straight out towards the pitcher on a pitched ball that would have hit him.. YES he gets 1st base as that is an act to actually protect himself.   I cannot and wont do that for a ball that is clearly not going to hit the batter at all

 

[Kevin_K]

58 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm an evil SOB, but when a kid doesn't move at all, I love calling, "TIME!  STAY RIGHT HERE!"  Then the argument begins.  My pat response is: "Coach, nothing says it has to be a good attempt.  Nothing says it has to be a "big" attempt.  Nothing says it has to be a successful attempt.  But it does say he cannot permit the ball to touch him.  Doing nothing is permitting it to touch you." 

NFHS: 7-3-4 "Batting Infractions -- A Batter Shall Not: ... Permit a pitched ball to touch him.  Penalty: The batter remains at bat (pitch is a ball or a strike) unless pitch was a third strike or ball four."  

From 2005 NFHS Interpretation:

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 he 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 Exception)

 

@Senor Azul, has this been supplanted by another interpretation?

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, SH0102 said:

Which part? The part about making an attempt is in there, the other part is good practice.  If a P zings a fastball 2 feet inside, I’m not rewarding the pitcher bc the batter froze 

I'm not asking about umpire judgement about awarding a HBP. I'm asking if you know the wording of the  rule you use to decide. Would you mind posting the FED rule or caseplay about "attempting to avoid"

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Kevin_K, that's a nice find. To answer your question, I don't think that 2005 interpretation has been supplanted. I searched the NFHS online revisions and only found one more reference to rule 7-3-4 and that was in the 2009 interpretations. Also the 2016 BRD makes no mention of any change to this rule.

Also one of the other rules cited at the end of the 2005 interpretation is now 8-1-1-d1. 

[The Man in Blue]

What renders a batter in a state they "could not react to the pitch"?  I know a breaking ball can throw a person off and catch a person by surprise ... but I have never seen one put a person into a catatonic state.  There is always some form of reaction.  It may not be big, it may not be good, but there is always something.

Sorry, but that is another lousy interpretation, IMO.

Nearly every coach has tried that argument, "He couldn't get out of the way!  He can't react that fast!"  I've had enough that I have a pat response: I immediately ask, "Has he ever gotten a hit?"

I had a coach once tell me the kid was too fat to get out of the way after the kid stood there, let the ball hit him in the butt, and then laughed. (I did not award the base).

Am I now judging the intelligence, athleticism, and playing ability of players?

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

My judgement was that he attempted intentionally to catch the pitch and it was 8 inches behind him and a non breaking ball. 

You cannot in any level reach out and put your hand in the path of a ball which would never hit you and expect to gain 1st base.

You said it was a "defensive reflex" in the post above.

What you are describing here is not a defensive reflex.

Words matter...and they mean what they mean.

 

And, yes, it is possible to have a defensive reflex that incorrectly, and unintentionally, puts you in harm's way....ie. if you had just stayed still nothing would have hit you...your defensive action caused you to get hit.  That could be you just reacting/moving without thinking, that could be you moving to the wrong place, or could be putting your hand out thinking (incorrectly) the ball was going to hit you.  That doesn't mean you haven't met the rule requirements of avoiding of HBP.  Don't punish the batter for simply reacting to a pitch that's closer to his person than any part of the plate.

I ask again...if I hop backwards, away from the plate, as a simple natural reaction to an inside pitch, and unintentionally move myself into the path of a (very very inside) fastball that otherwise would have passed behind me, are you making me stay put?

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Nearly every coach has tried that argument, "He couldn't get out of the way!  He can't react that fast!"  I've had enough that I have a pat response: I immediately ask, "Has he ever gotten a hit?"

I broke my collarbone getting hit by a pitch where I literally did not and could not move.  The ball left the pitcher's hand, and then I was on my ass.  I can assure you I did not allow the ball to hit me.

You're expecting the ball over the plate...you're starting your swing in that fashion...if the ball is suddenly straight at you you may indeed just plain freeze...or not even have time to form what reaction you want.

No MLB player let their face get broken on purpose.

[Kevin_K]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

What renders a batter in a state they "could not react to the pitch"?  I know a breaking ball can throw a person off and catch a person by surprise ... but I have never seen one put a person into a catatonic state.  There is always some form of reaction.  It may not be big, it may not be good, but there is always something.

Sorry, but that is another lousy interpretation, IMO.

Nearly every coach has tried that argument, "He couldn't get out of the way!  He can't react that fast!"  I've had enough that I have a pat response: I immediately ask, "Has he ever gotten a hit?"

I had a coach once tell me the kid was too fat to get out of the way after the kid stood there, let the ball hit him in the butt, and then laughed. (I did not award the base).

Am I now judging the intelligence, athleticism, and playing ability of players?

That's not the hill I'm choosing to die on. 

That scenario and exchange will, in all likelihood, make your experience on the field in that game exponentially more contentious.

MY .02. YMMV