HBP on a check swing?

[rhanna]

How do you rule on this?  Assume OBR.  Assume that:

1) The pitch is not a strike otherwise, the swing is checked early enough that the batter has not offered at the pitch, the only action by the batter is the checked swing.  There is no other attempt to avoid the ball.

Does it matter where the batter is hit?

- If the ball hits the batter's arms/hands and it is the swinging action that moved the hands/arms into the ball, can the better checking their swing be considered an attempt to avoid the ball?

-If the ball hits the batter somewhere else, would you rule differently?  E.G., maybe checking the swing is an attempt to avoid being hit by a pitch that this your hands, but it seems less clear that it could be an attempt to avoid a pitch that hits your hip.

 

Thanks.

 

[GiantEngineer]

If you ruled it not a swing, then assuming the ball is not in the strike zone it is a HBP (in the strike zone is a dead ball strike). If ruled a swing, it is a dead ball strike regardless of location. 

 

So trying to avoid is not applicable, you have to rule swing or not. 

[beerguy55]

Do you want the batter to always have to actively try to avoid the ball?   Start umping games where the pitcher throws anything over 90.  I can tell you from experience (and a broken collar bone), you don't have time to even TRY to avoid the ball.  It happens literally within the blink of an eye.

Or is the standard closer to ensuring the batter doesn't do anything to allow himself to be hit?

That is, rather than creating a burden of intentional avoidance, place the burden of intent on non-avoidance......but give the batter the benefit of the doubt - if the pitch is in the batter's box he shouldn't be required to do a damned thing...pitch better.

Swinging is a natural action - what if the batter checked his swing because he could see the ball was drifting/curving off the plate?  There is no intent on the batter's part to be hit, or to not avoid being hit...his hands are where they should be...as long as they're not in the strike zone when he gets hit.

[Velho]

4 minutes ago, GiantEngineer said:

If you ruled it not a swing, then assuming the ball is not in the strike zone it is a HBP (in the strike zone is a dead ball strike)

👆 Yep, that.

 

The complication beyond that can come when the batter checks their offering at the ball (OBR definition of a swing) but brings the bat forward as they transition into avoiding the ball. It's simply a judgement call.

[Central Cal Umpire]

By the book, if you're calling it a non-swing, it has to be ruled HBP. That said, I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing if the batter's own actions put him in the path of the ball. I'm like, well, I'll give you the check swing, but I'm not going to give you an HBP, too. I've called check swing strikes that hit the batter on more than one occasion in the past and one time specifically this year in a JV FED game because the batter committed most of the way and he could have avoided the pitch if he hadn't started his swing to begin with.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

one time specifically this year in a JV FED game because the batter committed most of the way and he could have avoided the pitch if he hadn't started his swing to begin with.

I follow the logic but not sure it's backed by the rulebook.

The FED standard is not must avoid:

"7-3 ART. 4 . .. Permit a pitched ball to touch the batter's person."

[834k3r]

39 minutes ago, Velho said:

I follow the logic but not sure it's backed by the rulebook.

The FED standard is not must avoid:

"7-3 ART. 4 . .. Permit a pitched ball to touch the batter's person."

Potentially OT, but I believe it to be germane.

When judging whether the batter "permit[ted]] a pitched ball" to hit him, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the batter. He has to be there, ready to swing the bat. Just about the only time I won't is when the batter intentionally moved a part of his body into the path of the ball (knees and elbows primarily).

In the case of a batter successfully checking his swing, I'd say the ball hitting the batter would count as a HBP--even if it was on his hands.

[Velho]

10 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

even if it was on his hands

Which hands? The ones they were born with or that came from the store?

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

By the book, if you're calling it a non-swing, it has to be ruled HBP. That said, I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing if the batter's own actions put him in the path of the ball. I'm like, well, I'll give you the check swing, but I'm not going to give you an HBP, too. I've called check swing strikes that hit the batter on more than one occasion in the past and one time specifically this year in a JV FED game because the batter committed most of the way and he could have avoided the pitch if he hadn't started his swing to begin with.

You might want to start enforcing the rules rather than making up your own.

The batter has an absolute right to swing at a pitch, and to also change his mind and stop that swing.

In no universe, outside your imagination, would this be construed as failing to avoid or allowing himself to be hit.

Because if we extend your "logic" to its inevitable conclusion, a batter who crowds the plate (but is still in the box and not in the strike zone) put himself there...and if you want to get really nuts, by simply standing in the box the batter put himself in the path of the pitch.  He should have just stayed in the on-deck circle if he didn't want to get hit by the pitch.

You make that bullSH*# call in a game where I'm coaching, you're writing an ejection report...and I'm submitting your name for a Teachable Moment.

[MadMax]

Best practice is to track and call the pitch; you’re the only Umpire tasked to do so. In the case of reading/interpreting swings, though, there’s at least one other umpire who is reading for (what constitutes) a swing. In instances like this, where the elements of a swing occurs, and the pitch hits the batter, I (as PU) am going to consciously disconnect the pitch from the (potential) swing. I’m calling the pitch (then vocally calling “Time!”). Then, if elements of a swing reveal themselves, I’ll check with my (appropriate) BU. 

In this way, if I track and call the pitch, if the batter puts his hands, or wrist, or knee (such as on a bunt attempt) into the zone, intersecting the pitch, then I already have the pitch as a strike anyway; I’m not hunting for strikes, so to speak. 

One of the most tragic instances of this (in the MLB) was Giancarlo Stanton when he played with the Marlins, visiting the Brewers. The pitch came up and in, and hit Stanton in the face. After immediate attention to Stanton, a check swing appeal was enacted, and it was adjudged that Stanton had struck at the pitch. Certainly, Stanton didn’t put his face into the zone (or near it), nor did the PU “grab that (as a) swing”. 

 

[Central Cal Umpire]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

You make that bullSH*# call in a game where I'm coaching, you're writing an ejection report...and I'm submitting your name for a Teachable Moment.

You could try communicating a bit more effectively.

I said, 

8 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing if the batter's own actions put him in the path of the ball.

So, I don't always

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

extend your "logic" to its inevitable conclusion,

It's on a case by case basis.

But thanks for the poor communication anyway. Good to know this is a reasonably open forum where up and comers can voice their thoughts without being dumped on. That sounds like exactly why we're all here.

[Richvee]

6 minutes ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing if the batter's own actions put him in the path of the ball.

This statement is the issue. It doesn’t matter what you like calling. You cannot decide not to call a HBP because the batter’s actions of starting a swing “put him in the path”. Unless the pitch is in the strike zone, or he swung. Anything else, barring deliberately getting hit, is a HBP - like it or not. 

[Central Cal Umpire]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

This statement is the issue. It doesn’t matter what you like calling. You cannot decide not to call a HBP because the batter’s actions of starting a swing “put him in the path”. Unless the pitch is in the strike zone, or he swung. Anything else, barring deliberately getting hit, is a HBP - like it or not. 

Point taken. 

[beerguy55]

10 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

You could try communicating a bit more effectively.

I communicated fine - the post, in its entirety, is clear, concise and on point. And you understood it. You don't like the B word, I won't use it.

 

10 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

But thanks for the poor communication anyway. Good to know this is a reasonably open forum where up and comers can voice their thoughts without being dumped on. That sounds like exactly why we're all here.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion...no one's entitled to their own facts.  And you're certainly not entitled to use your own rulebook.  I'm not reacting to what you "always" do, I'm reacting to what you "sometimes" do...and what you sometimes do is factually wrong, outside the scope of your duties, and a violation of your obligations to enforce the rules of the game...this isn't a discussion about whether or not we should adhere to the gold standard, or whether or not pot should be legal - this is a discussion about the actual rules...and you fully admitted to breaking those rules because "you don't like" it.

If you are denying a HBP because, in your opinion, the check swing caused it, you're failing to do your job.  Any such call is malarkey.

If you are ruling a check swing a strike, that would otherwise never be ruled a strike, solely because the batter got hit by the pitch, you're failing to do your job.  Any such call is balderdash.

Unless the batter actually swung, or unless the pitch is in the strike zone, or the batter did something intentional to be hit (or not missed), and you deny the HBP, you're failing to do your job.  Any such call is humbug.

 

[Central Cal Umpire]

26 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Unless the batter actually swung, or unless the pitch is in the strike zone, or the batter did something intentional to be hit (or not missed), and you deny the HBP, you're failing to do your job. 

See. Now that's proper communication. And already made by someone before you. But thanks for the qualification. Now I have something I can apply on the field, don't I.

[beerguy55]

21 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

I'm like, well, I'll give you the check swing, but I'm not going to give you an HBP, too. I've called check swing strikes that hit the batter on more than one occasion in the past and one time specifically this year in a JV FED game because the batter committed most of the way and he could have avoided the pitch if he hadn't started his swing to begin with.

In other situations, with other people, I could be a bigger person and let you save face here, but I don't think it's justified, because I just don't buy your sincerity.

There are two fundamental problems with your statement, with two different scenarios.

1. Ruling that the batter's check swing caused him to be hit, and denying the HBP, is problematic, but could just be rooted in a misunderstanding of the rule...it can be addressed and corrected if the umpire making this mistake is interested in learning.  Especially if they are consistently ruling this way, it can easily become a Teachable Moment.  Your words, however, seem to indicate you fully understand the rule, but feel sometimes that the batter shouldn't benefit from it.

2. Taking a check swing and deciding it's now a swing/strike, solely because the pitch hit the batter, is a whole new level, as it requires the umpire to intentionally fabricate something.  To manufacture a strike to justify not giving the batter first base...and to further punish the batter with a strike for stopping their swing in the path of the ball (which was never in the strike zone), is overstepping at best, malicious at worst.   It's much more egregious than scenario 1, but it's also easier to "disguise" - ie. "well, I simply judged it's a swing"...it'll raise some eyebrows, but the coach's ability to dispute it is limited, by rule.  But under the surface is an abuse of power that no person here should simply ignore or excuse.

So, yes, I have serious questions about how you felt justified to fabricate strikes to begin with....to arbitrarily determine that check swings are now swings; or in other cases intentionally determine "I'll give you the check swing, but not the HBP."

As described, reading your own words, this is not a misunderstanding on your part.  This is an intent to invoke some level of justice befitting of your standards.  "By the book, if you're calling it a non-swing, it has to be ruled HBP. That said, I don't always like calling an HBP on a check swing"

I don't care if it's always or sometimes...it should be never.

So be honest - if not with us, at least with yourself.  

When you made these calls in the past - whether you've done it once or 20 times - you never got an argument that made you think twice?  A protest?  Never ended in a warning or ejection?  A meltdown from the stands?   A double take from your partner?  Constructive feedback from an evaluator/mentor?

No reaction from any coach, or your umping partner, gave you pause to reflect that maybe you were out of line?  Yeah, players/coaches argue.  And most of the time they don't know what they're talking about.  But a self-aware umpire needs to sometimes recognize "weird...they're REALLY adamant here - maybe I'll ask a colleague" or "you know, this is the fifth time I've made this call, and this is the fifth different coach who thinks I'm wrong...maybe I should look into this"...or "hmm, my partners keep asking me about these calls, maybe I should have an honest conversation with them."

You honestly had to come to a random message board, make an off-handed comment, and see someone explicitly spell out to you the rule before you saw the error of your ways?  Cross your heart and hope to die you won't fabricate strikes anymore?

1 hour ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

Now that's proper communication. And already made by someone before you. 

Yup - and since timing seems important to you - it is a point I made five days ago on this very thread, four days before your initial statement.  Not sure why you needed to make that point, but the information was there before you made your claim.

Despite what you want to try, this isn't about who communicated what or when, and whether they used bad words that schoolteachers frown upon in their classrooms...this is about how you abuse your power on the ball field to your whims.

If you're doing the stuff that you describe above, what else are you pulling out of your keister to make sure everything is to your liking?

 

 

[Central Cal Umpire]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

this is about how you abuse your power on the ball field to your whims.

It's a rather drastic over exaggeration to call it abuse. If it's a part of umpiring that needs correcting, I'll accept that for the purpose of improvement. Calling it abuse to justify your own overreaction and unnecessary response is nonsense.

But your point has been made. Time to move on.

[rhanna]

Thanks to everyone that weighed in and I appreciate the insight.  OBR Rule 5.05(b)(2) says that a batter gets first base if:

(2)  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; If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.

Based on the above discussion, it is my understanding that most of the umpires here interpret the "attempt to avoid" requirement not as a positive requirement to try to avoid a pitch but as "ensuring the batter doesn't do anything to allow himself to be hit?"  Beerguy55 refers to the high speed of high level pitching.  No one has time to actively avoid a 90mph pitch that they might be swinging at.

Makes sense to me.

Does the speed/skill of the pitching change this at all?  If we're talking little league meatballs at 35 mph and the batter just stands there and watches the ball float in and hit them, same standard?  I'm pretty sure I've seen an umpire refuse to award a base on a non-strike hit by pitch where he deemed the batter to be insufficiently active in avoiding a slow pitch.

 

 

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, rhanna said:

Does the speed/skill of the pitching change this at all?  If we're talking little league meatballs at 35 mph and the batter just stands there and watches the ball float in and hit them, same standard?  I'm pretty sure I've seen an umpire refuse to award a base on a non-strike hit by pitch where he deemed the batter to be insufficiently active in avoiding a slow pitch.

Big thing to remember: batting skill is often commensurate with the speed/skill of the pitching.

At the younger levels, you can often get a sense of the sophisticated players that are trying to get hit - same as MLB with a subtle elbow extension or the like but, generally, younger players are more apt to freeze than "stand their ground" to try and get hit.

Case in point: LL Majors, I had a batter I thought was freezing trying to get hit. Was all ready to tell him to "stay here!". Pitch hits him on the wrist... and he drops, screaming and crying. "Take your base" 🤣 

My input is don't over think it.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, rhanna said:

most of the umpires here interpret the "attempt to avoid" requirement not as a positive requirement to try to avoid a pitch but as "ensuring the batter doesn't do anything to allow himself to be hit?"

This is how I call it. Big inside curveball, the batter has to stay on there to some degree….They’re looking for a late break. If it hits his shoulder because it didn’t break, that’s a HBP. Slow inside curve, batter sticks out his elbow, he’s staying. 

[Velho]

21 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Big inside curveball, the batter has to stay on there to some degree….They’re looking for a late break. If it hits his shoulder because it didn’t break, that’s a HBP. Slow inside curve, batter sticks out his elbow, he’s staying. 

Then there is the corollary pitch that batter bails out on and sweeps in for a strike.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Then there is the corollary pitch that batter bails out on and sweeps in for a strike.

Got a story about that one...pitcher throws hard...he's lefty, I'm lefty.  He throws one that I'm pretty sure is going in my ear hole...my knees buckle...and it breaks across the plate for a strike.

The very next pitch, inside again, and it breaks...my left collar bone.

This is the dance we do every day at the plate...

[Velho]

23 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Got a story about that one...pitcher throws hard...he's lefty, I'm lefty.  He throws one that I'm pretty sure is going in my ear hole...my knees buckle...and it breaks across the plate for a strike.

The very next pitch, inside again, and it breaks...my left collar bone.

This is the dance we do every day at the plate...

Ooof

[MadMax]

6 hours ago, rhanna said:

I'm pretty sure I've seen an umpire refuse to award a base on a non-strike hit by pitch where he deemed the batter to be insufficiently active in avoiding a slow pitch.

There are some umpires who get so fed up and perturbed with walk-fests, that they stretch interpretations and adjudications so as to avoid yet another baserunner. 

Surprisingly, these umpires and the “My _______” group do not overlap. 🤔