Batter Swaps Sides (Switch Hits) During Same AB

[Velho]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Here was question #3:

@UAME's pain was your gain!

[UAME]

On 3/20/2026 at 1:30 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Since I am on spring break, I am sitting at a restaurant and completing my "promotion exam" . . . 

Here was question #3:

 

 

MiB,

Just curious what rule set this exam was for?

One thing the head coach told me was that after his contact with his local umpire association and the NFHS, he instructed his players to always ask for time when swapping boxes in the middle of an AB.  However, I don't see this as a requirement of the NFHS rule - just that F1 cannot be "in position ready to pitch."

Maybe this is just the HC's mitigation of having 7-3-3 called on his batter, but was curious if another rule set may mandate that Time be called?

The HC said his batter asked for time from me - honestly, I have no idea.  I can't tell you how many times I ignore a batter holding his hand up in cases like this (e.g., no runners on base, a wild pitch where F2 has gone to retrieve a ball.)  There was no need, in my mind, to call Time.  But, if a rule somewhere is mandating that a Batter get time, I may need to amend my line of thinking.

[Richvee]

On 3/18/2026 at 8:52 AM, MadMax said:

How ‘bout a diagram? How ‘bout a web article, with photos/illustrations? How ‘bout a video? 
No no! We’re far more perseverating on determining that eye-black is gang intimidation (how ‘bout some photos or illustrations?), and cramming that in the latest one printing per year paper tome of the year! 

At least NCAA has a digital version, emailed updates & notices, and the videos ta boot. That should be, in this day and age, a minimum standard. 

100%. But I got to say, at least there's Patrick Farber @ Umpire Classroom is trying to raise the bar for NFHS education. Some...if not all of his videos, especially new rules and interp videos should be required for any NFHS umpire

[noumpere]

52 minutes ago, UAME said:

MiB,

Just curious what rule set this exam was for?

One thing the head coach told me was that after his contact with his local umpire association and the NFHS, he instructed his players to always ask for time when swapping boxes in the middle of an AB.  However, I don't see this as a requirement of the NFHS rule - just that F1 cannot be "in position ready to pitch."

 

I'm not MiB, but it was a HS exam.

 

And (rhetorical question alert), in FED, when can a batter leave the box?  That will guide you to the reason for requesting time.

[UAME]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

I'm not MiB, but it was a HS exam.

 

And (rhetorical question alert), in FED, when can a batter leave the box?  That will guide you to the reason for requesting time.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I do know the conditions for leaving the box legally.  The 3-0 pitch was a wild pitch, so IF the batter requested time to step out I would have ignored it (meaning that I wouldn't have held up my hands and declared "Time!")

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

at least there's Patrick Farber @ Umpire Classroom

It shouldn't be just Patrick, or coming from or via Patrick exclusively. This is a Federal -level entity. Granted, there is a clause that individual states are at liberty to adopt any, select, or all of the various articles within the NFHS Rulebook. As such, how each state implements and trains their umpires should be the domain of that state. However, that condition should not absolve the Fed from doing due diligence in explaining, demonstrating, and constructing a dynamic resource / reference nexus. 
I know, I know... lots of big words. In short, they shouldn't be sitting in Indianapolis and hiding, just issuing newsletters, and leaving interpretations and training materials up to the states. If people can make stupid, inane TikTok videos, then a couple of middle-aged dudes can go out back and make a video clip about what they have in mind regarding a rule. Hey, it's a start. 

 

And another topic regarding Patrick. I actually worry about him, professionally. Why? Because there are some of our contemporaries who get terribly butt-hurt with how Patrick is publishing the information for free. 

... and they get terribly vindictive and petty – professionally – over it. 

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, UAME said:

MiB,

Just curious what rule set this exam was for?

IHSA (Illinois High School Association) under NFHS rules.

I am 1000% with you.  As I pointed out in another thread, there were several questions that are questionable in either the way they are constructed or the logic used to arrive at the desired answer.  With our exams, there always is.

 

 

6 hours ago, noumpere said:

I'm not MiB, but it was a HS exam.

And (rhetorical question alert), in FED, when can a batter leave the box?  That will guide you to the reason for requesting time.

I disagree.  First, my awesomeness is such that we are ALL TMIB.  😋

 

Whoa, wait, whoops.

 

Then there is the matter that the logic you present will not guide you to the answer.  Seven of the eight "exceptions" that allow the batter to leave the box do not require time to be called.   All seven of those are live ball situations.

[noumpere]

37 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

IHSA (Illinois High School Association) under NFHS rules.

I am 1000% with you.  As I pointed out in another thread, there were several questions that are questionable in either the way they are constructed or the logic used to arrive at the desired answer.  With our exams, there always is.

 

 

I disagree.  First, my awesomeness is such that we are ALL TMIB.  😋

 

Whoa, wait, whoops.

 

Then there is the matter that the logic you present will not guide you to the answer.  Seven of the eight "exceptions" that allow the batter to leave the box do not require time to be called.   All seven of those are live ball situations.

Agreed. But , from the coach’s perspective, just teaching the simple “request time” means it will never be illegal (no one except umpires will remember something like “request time unless……”)

[The Man in Blue]

16 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Agreed. But , from the coach’s perspective, just teaching the simple “request time” means it will never be illegal (no one except umpires will remember something like “request time unless……”)

Sorry, I misread your post.  I read that as leading to the test answer, not the coach's logic.  Totally agree with the coach's logic! 

I'd put there up there with calling "time" before you brush off home plate.  If you just do it, you will never have a problem.

[Velho]

49 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Totally agree with the coach's logic! 

Same as F2 asking for Time to give 1st & 3rd signs. Never hurts to ask!

[MadMax]

47 minutes ago, Velho said:

Same as F2 asking for Time to give 1st & 3rd signs. Never hurts to ask!

But completely unnecessary! 

And, it further conflates things because some umpire will treat it as a defensive meeting or a reset*. 

* - don’t you dare say “that doesn’t happen”. It does! I have the emails from NCAA to prove it!

[Velho]

36 minutes ago, MadMax said:

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Same as F2 asking for Time to give 1st & 3rd signs. Never hurts to ask!

But completely unnecessary! 

 

Absolutely. My partners know my boo-boo face when the catcher tricks me into giving time on that.

"Yeah, you got me, you got me. Ain't happening again kid."

[WIUMP]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

It shouldn't be just Patrick, or coming from or via Patrick exclusively. This is a Federal -level entity. Granted, there is a clause that individual states are at liberty to adopt any, select, or all of the various articles within the NFHS Rulebook. As such, how each state implements and trains their umpires should be the domain of that state. However, that condition should not absolve the Fed from doing due diligence in explaining, demonstrating, and constructing a dynamic resource / reference nexus. 
I know, I know... lots of big words. In short, they shouldn't be sitting in Indianapolis and hiding, just issuing newsletters, and leaving interpretations and training materials up to the states. If people can make stupid, inane TikTok videos, then a couple of middle-aged dudes can go out back and make a video clip about what they have in mind regarding a rule. Hey, it's a start. 

 

And another topic regarding Patrick. I actually worry about him, professionally. Why? Because there are some of our contemporaries who get terribly butt-hurt with how Patrick is publishing the information for free. 

... and they get terribly vindictive and petty – professionally – over it. 

Getting back into this after about a decade away—now with 9 years as an AD and 21 as a coach—I’m concerned by how little standardization exists in basic umpire training.

In my state, you can get games at Level 0 — meaning you’ve paid your fee and that’s it. No exam. No rules video. You’re on a field.

Our ranking system only impacts tournament assignments the following year, so there’s almost zero real-time accountability.

I’m all for states having some autonomy. HS baseball in Wisconsin—even at the top level—is very different than Florida or Texas. But there should be a baseline for entry-level training.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Same as F2 asking for Time to give 1st & 3rd signs. Never hurts to ask!

I've tried to . . . 

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

But completely unnecessary! 

And, it further conflates things because some umpire will treat it as a defensive meeting or a reset*. 

* - don’t you dare say “that doesn’t happen”. It does! I have the emails from NCAA to prove it!

 

But a defensive meeting is a stoppage of play for members of the defense to communicate!  Are they communicating?  Did he stop play/request a stoppage of play?  😋

[Velho]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

But a defensive meeting is a stoppage of play for members of the defense to communicate!  Are they communicating?  Did he stop play/request a stoppage of play?  😋

Malicious compliance at the level that limits # of conferences would get the coaches to stop teaching Time on that.

[BigBlue4u]

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I am 1000% with you.  As I pointed out in another thread, there were several questions that are questionable in either the way they are constructed or the logic used to arrive at the desired answer.  With our exams, there always is.

I have written dozens rule tests over the years.  I always have one or two people take the test before it is distributed.  Why?  Because, once in a while, what I want to say and how it is received are two different things.  As a former instructional chairman for our umpire unit, I would have all ejection reports sent directly to me for review before forwarding it to the state office.  The only reason is for clarity.  I've received some reports, reread them a number of times and still couldn't figure out what the umpire was trying to say in his report.  After reviewing a report, I would send it back to the umpire for his approval before forwarding it to the state office.

[BigBlue4u]

On 3/16/2026 at 8:23 AM, UAME said:

"Coach, if I'm wrong, I want to know it, but we'll cover that after the game.

What I would like to know is where did you get the idea that what the batter was doing was not legal?

[BigBlue4u]

On 3/16/2026 at 8:23 AM, UAME said:

"Coach, if I'm wrong, I want to know it, but we'll cover that after the game.

What I would like to know is where did you get the idea that what the batter was doing was not legal?

[UAME]

42 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

What I would like to know is where did you get the idea that what the batter was doing was not legal?

@BigBlue4u If you haven't picked up on it, I'm not trying to justify my decision.  Here are the best explanations to your question that I offered in hindsight:

On 3/16/2026 at 4:33 PM, UAME said:

Well, before the game, here's what I knew:

1) There was a rule (7-3-3) that prohibits the batter from swapping boxes to rattle the pitcher.

2) There was a rule (6-1-1) that requires an ambidextrous pitcher to commit to one hand or the other before the batter makes his choice.

3) Since I didn't recall ever seeing a batter switch boxes during an AB, I presumed that once the choices were made under 6-1-1, both sides were "locked in" until the AB was complete or a pitching change occurred.

It didn't seem like much of a stretch to me.  But, I won't rule that way again.

 

 

On 3/19/2026 at 2:56 PM, UAME said:

...

I thought that the rules wanted to prohibit any repetitive-swapping scenario, but to do so required the committee to codify WHICH player (the pitcher or batter) would be mandated to choose first.  The rulesmakers chose the Pitcher must decide first and then stick with it.  After that, the batter gets to choose.  (The part I inferred, which was incorrect, was: and the batter must stick with his choice until the end of AB, inning, or a substitution is made.)

 

[beerguy55]

On 3/16/2026 at 10:13 AM, UAME said:

I guess my only lingering question is:  why don't you see this done more often?  I can't believe with all the baseball I've watched in my 50+ years, I haven't seen it before.

It's more common in fastpitch, but could be applicable in baseball.

Basically, the batter goes left and tries a running slap to get a head start to first.  After a couple of strikes, the batter switches to bat right because it's their stronger side.

I've also seen one scenario where it was discovered that the pitcher just couldn't handle pitching to left-handed batters...so, they all bat left, and then if they somehow get to two strikes they switch to right, if that's their natural side.

[BigBlue4u]

18 hours ago, UAME said:

I thought that the rules wanted to prohibit any repetitive-swapping scenario, but to do so required the committee to codify WHICH player (the pitcher or batter) would be mandated to choose first.  The rulesmakers chose the Pitcher must decide first and then stick with it.  After that, the batter gets to choose.  (The part I inferred, which was incorrect, was: and the batter must stick with his choice until the end of AB, inning, or a substitution is made.)

No problem. What you did was add 2 + 2 and came up with 5.  Right information, wrong conclusion.  It happens to all of us once in a while.