Hit by pitch and ball strike count

[Sftballdad1]

So yesterday on a 0-0counts keilani rickets hit a girl and it was ruled NOT a HBP because PU thought it was a strike and the girls leaned into the strike zone.....OK, BUT, after all that happened the count then was 1-0. So, why was it a ball if the PU thought it was in the strike zone and the batter leaned into it and was NOT awarded 1st.

Doesn't make much sense to me...

 

[Crabby_Bob]

So yesterday on a 0-0counts keilani rickets hit a girl and it was ruled NOT a HBP because PU thought it was a strike and the girls leaned into the strike zone.....OK, BUT, after all that happened the count then was 1-0. So, why was it a ball if the PU thought it was in the strike zone and the batter leaned into it and was NOT awarded 1st.

The pitch was ruled a ball and the umpire never signals a strike. The plate umpire clearly shows the count as 2-2 before the strikeout pitch.

Doesn't make much sense to me...

Don't believe everything you hear from Michelle.

 

[Umpire]

Are you implying that an NCAA softball announcer misspoke? Blasphemy! They are absolutely clueless. "The ball either went out of play or there was interference. Either way, the runner gets 2nd."

 

[Sftballdad1]

The pitch was ruled a ball and the umpire never signals a strike. The plate umpire clearly shows the count as 2-2 before the strikeout pitch.


Don't believe everything you hear from Michelle.

Well the reason she was not awarded first is because the PU said it was in the strike zone

I have No clue what you are talking about on the Michele deal. Not relevant to my question.

 

[Umpire]

It was ruled not a HBP because the pitch was not within the batter's box, was a ball and the batter did not attempt to avoid being hit by it. By definition, that is a ball. It was not ruled a strike. Did you see the umpire signal strike?

 

[Crabby_Bob]

Are you implying that an NCAA softball announcer misspoke? Blasphemy! They are absolutely clueless. "The ball either went out of play or there was interference. Either way, the runner gets 2nd."

I heard that one. Yikes!

If we believe everything the announcers say, we're bound to become confused.

 

[Umpire]

I take a portion of my comment back. I've now watched it 1/2 a dozen times. It was called a strike. Later in the at bat, right after the plate umpire pointlessly interrupted the game to brush off home plate, she came back and showed 2-2. The count at that time was 1-2.

The fact that ESPN put up 1-0 is 100% irrelevant. Though, coincidentally enough, the umpire put up the wrong count later on.

 

[Crabby_Bob]

The pitch sequence is ?BCFS. Where do you see the umpire signal a strike? After the discussion and as the batter is setting up in the box, the umpire is showing the count, but ESPN does not have a count. The umpire's arms go down and now we see it's 1-0. The announcer then says, "The 1-0 pitch ...". The pitch in question was a ball. This is completely consistent with the umpire showing the count as 2-2 just prior to the strikeout pitch.

 

[Umpire]

The pitch sequence is ?BCFS. Where do you see the umpire signal a strike? After the discussion and as the batter is setting up in the box, the umpire is showing the count, but ESPN does not have a count. The umpire's arms go down and now we see it's 1-0. The announcer then says, "The 1-0 pitch ...". The pitch in question was a ball. This is completely consistent with the umpire showing the count as 2-2 just prior to the strikeout pitch.

I'm flip-flopping like a politician here. One of the replays showed the right arm go up. I saw a later replay that encompassed that same play and I now see that the left arm went up as well, calling a dead ball.

I thought that a dead ball, ball was the correct call. I'm glad to see that it wasn't called a strike. I thought the pitch was high.

The announcers talking about a "strike" or 1/3 of a rule doesn't = strike.