Strike? Foul Ball? HBP?

[T.J.]

Thanks all...here is some more specific detail.

It was a batter on MY team

Two strikes

Pitch comes in....she swings... And ball hits her hands as the bat is crossing the plate.

She was trying to hit the ball.

I start walking to dugout thinking she struck out

This is when things got interesting as there were questions about whether ball hit her hands or forearm. PU thought it hit her forearm and was ready to call it a strike

Our manager and opposing manager said ...no it hit her hands

Home plate ump asked field ump for help

FU said it hit her hands...not forearm

PU said bc it hit her hands it's a foul ball bc hands are part of the bat. If it hit her forearm it would have been a strike

My position was that it was a strike bc hands are NOT part of the bat

Our manager and AC and other coaches all agreed it was a foul ball bc hands are part of the bat

At that point I shook my head, stopped offering input as the PU made his call and it is what it us

Opposing manager reiterated to me that the hands are part of the bat.....insinuating I was an idiot

Stupid is as stupid does I guess

Thanks again for all your input

 

[MT 73]

I once had 12 people--including 6 umpires ( it was after a tournament game) try to convince me that when a runner who left the base before a fly ball is caught and is then thrown out on the appeal is a force out.
No amount of logic on my part ( Hey--how can it be a force when the batter/runner is out??) could make them see the light.
Sometimes you just have to walk away.

 

[BretMan]

And the MYTH lives on...

I think that I'm going to start calling this the zombie of rule myths, because no matter how long we play this game this myth just will not die!

Once, when I was a kid playing ball, an umpire called a strike on me because the pitch hit me on the hand and "the hands are part of the bat". He was wrong, but I didn't know any better because I was a kid.

Back a few years ago, when I was umpiring a high school baseball game, a coach threatened to report me to the state athletic association for my incompetence as an umpire, just because I called a hit batter instead of a foul ball when his pitcher hit a batter on the hands. He was wrong. I gave him the name of the state head of officials and told him to make sure he got my name right in his complaint.

Last season, a couple of umpires who worked the game before mine were telling me how they dumped a coach for arguing. I asked what he was arguing about. They said that a pitch hit a batter on the hands and they called it a batted ball and the batter got thrown out at first base. When the coach questioned it, things escalated into an ejection. All because two umpires who should have known better got it wrong.

By the way...it says in the rule book, right under the section about batters getting hit by pitches, that THE HANDS ARE NOT PART OF THE BAT.

 

[Greenmonsters]

And the MYTH lives on...

I think that I'm going to start calling this the zombie of rule myths, because no matter how long we play this game this myth just will not die!

Once, when I was a kid playing ball, an umpire called a strike on me because the pitch hit me on the hand and "the hands are part of the bat". He was wrong, but I didn't know any better because I was a kid.

Back a few years ago, when I was umpiring a high school baseball game, a coach threatened to report me to the state athletic association for my incompetence as an umpire, just because I called a hit batter instead of a foul ball when his pitcher hit a batter on the hands. He was wrong. I gave him the name of the state head of officials and told him to make sure he got my name right in his complaint.

Last season, a couple of umpires who worked the game before mine were telling me how they dumped a coach for arguing. I asked what he was arguing about. They said that a pitch hit a batter on the hands and they called it a batted ball and the batter got thrown out at first base. When the coach questioned it, things escalated into an ejection. All because two umpires who should have known better got it wrong.

By the way...it says in the rule book, right under the section about batters getting hit by pitches, that THE HANDS ARE NOT PART OF THE BAT.

I see you neatly sidestepped Umpire's issue! But I'm not gonna let you off the hook so easily - Do you similarly recognize a distinction between "while swinging" and "swung" when it comes to a HBP scenario?

 

[Comp]

Its pretty simple. If in the umpires judgement the batter was attempting to strike the ball and gets hit by the pitch it is a dead ball strike. If the umpire does not judge the batter was attempting to strike the ball, it is a dead ball hit by pitch.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Its pretty simple. If in the umpires judgement the batter was attempting to strike the ball and gets hit by the pitch it is a dead ball strike. If the umpire does not judge the batter was attempting to strike the ball, it is a dead ball hit by pitch.

I agree. If a batter gets hit "while swinging", I have no choice but to infer that they were swinging in an attempt to strike the ball. I never want to see anyone get hit and hurt, but its a strike even if it hits them in the head if they were in the process of swinging.

 

[Umpire]

I agree. If a batter gets hit "while swinging", I have no choice but to infer that they were swinging in an attempt to strike the ball. I never want to see anyone get hit and hurt, but its a strike even if it hits them in the head if they were in the process of swinging.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This is NOT correct. Are you saying that since the batter took the bat off of her shoulder and moved it forward two inches when she was struck she can't be entitled to the "hit by pitch" protection? Your "process of swinging" completely muddies the waters. This is the reason I constantly point out the importance of using the terminology that is in the rulebook. When we don't crack the spine of the book and get our noses in the black and white print, we are working off of ideas and notions, not actual rules.

To understand why there is a distinction in what I have been trying to differentiate, it is necessary to go back and read several areas of the rulebook and then consider my comments based on the totality of the relevant rules. Look up terms like, "strike," "a strike is called when," "checked swing" (in the rules and R/S or POE), "hit by pitch," "a ball is called when," etc.

Let's use a different verb since "swing" is too difficult for some. The password is "CHANGE." Yesterday I got a flat tire on my car. I took the spare out of my trunk. I was on the side of the road CHANGING my tire. While CHANGING my tire it began to rain. While CHANGING my tire it continued raining. I got wet while CHANGING my tire. After 10 minutes of CHANGING my tire, the new tire was on my car. At last, I had CHANGED my tire. At the time it began to RAIN, I had not get CHANGED my tire. Instead, I was in the process of changing it. That means I was able to GET WET before I CHANGED the tire.

What I often find is that when I am specific in an explanation and interpretation of a rule or play, the response I get is, "Well, leaving all that legalize aside, explain xyz." When I give a more general answer, I get, "Can you be more specific." If I take the time to give both the KISS interpretation as well as the more legal-type analysis and you are still unwilling or unable to accept it, then there isn't much more that I can do. In all seriousness, it must come down either to poor reading comprehension, stubbornness, ignorance, laziness or some combination of the aforementioned.

 

[chinamigarden]

So what you mean is if the batter is merely loading you can't call that a swing. Why didn't you just say that.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Its pretty simple. If in the umpires judgement the batter was attempting to strike the ball and gets hit by the pitch it is a dead ball strike. If the umpire does not judge the batter was attempting to strike the ball, it is a dead ball hit by pitch.

That was my understanding and Umpire's thanks to your post clarifies more than anything he posted. It IS very simple when explained properly.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This is NOT correct. Are you saying that since the batter took the bat off of her shoulder and moved it forward two inches when she was struck she can't be entitled to the "hit by pitch" protection? Your "process of swinging" completely muddies the waters.

Your terminology muddied the waters. I surely would not consider a small movement of the bat to be "swinging" as you seemingly do. To us, "is swinging" would be judged as an attempt to hit the ball (i.e. a swing) and early movements alone would not meet the criteria. Therefore, your terminology suggests a batter that is attempting to hit the ball is different than a batter that has already COMPLETED their attempt to hit the ball. Hence, our request for clarification.

This is the reason I constantly point out the importance of using the terminology that is in the rulebook. When we don't crack the spine of the book and get our noses in the black and white print, we are working off of ideas and notions, not actual rules.

To understand why there is a distinction in what I have been trying to differentiate, it is necessary to go back and read several areas of the rulebook and then consider my comments based on the totality of the relevant rules. Look up terms like, "strike," "a strike is called when," "checked swing" (in the rules and R/S or POE), "hit by pitch," "a ball is called when," etc.

That may apply to some, but not me. I've spent and continue to spend a considerable amount of time in the ASA, NFHS and NCAA rule books. I've also learned a lot over the years from knowledgeable umpires on forums like this one. That has been very helpful because rule books alone are unfortunately insufficient due to the amount of additional official info that is disseminated and not incorporated into the rule books.

Let's use a different verb since "swing" is too difficult for some. The password is "CHANGE." Yesterday I got a flat tire on my car. I took the spare out of my trunk. I was on the side of the road CHANGING my tire. While CHANGING my tire it began to rain. While CHANGING my tire it continued raining. I got wet while CHANGING my tire. After 10 minutes of CHANGING my tire, the new tire was on my car. At last, I had CHANGED my tire. At the time it began to RAIN, I had not get CHANGED my tire. Instead, I was in the process of changing it. That means I was able to GET WET before I CHANGED the tire.

Your example is all wet for several reasons. Based on your previous terminology, getting out of the car is changing the tire.

What I often find is that when I am specific in an explanation and interpretation of a rule or play, the response I get is, "Well, leaving all that legalize aside, explain xyz." When I give a more general answer, I get, "Can you be more specific." If I take the time to give both the KISS interpretation as well as the more legal-type analysis and you are still unwilling or unable to accept it, then there isn't much more that I can do. In all seriousness, it must come down either to poor reading comprehension, stubbornness, ignorance, laziness or some combination of the aforementioned.

In all seriousness Richard, quit blaming others - it's you.