Hit By Pitch Ruling

[The Man In Blue]

in the absence of any other information.. Our league defaults to "NJ Highschool rules" but nowhere does it provide access to those.

Then shame on your league. Also, shame on NFHS for only making their book available for $10 ... and now only digitally available through them. 2020 was the last book you could buy a Kindle version for. I still use my 2020 (BB and SB) to do searches, then go to the current paper book for any updates.

USSSA and NCAA books have been available for free online for awhile now. USA finally joined that trend and has made a digital version available for free now.

When I ran our local rec league, one of the reasons we used PONY rules was they would sell us their books for $1.50 each. Every season we would order 50 copies and every coach was given one at the pre-season coaches' meeting. Very few of them ever opened them or used them, but it was worth the expense so they couldn't "play" dumb ... we knew they really were dumb when they tried it. (Sorry. Just calling it like I see it.)

Which book do you want the rule for?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Forgive my sloppy highlighting ... here is USSSA since that was the OP's code.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I have only one time seen it ruled correctly (a ball, in that case). I see inexperienced players taking their hands off the bat and putting it in front of the ball all the time. I've never understood why the HBP was awarded when the batter caused it (even though, like you said, it's a defensive act).

I feel like this is one of those where the umpires who award the HBP incorrectly aren't going to budge if I try to talk to them about it.

Sadly, you are probably correct. It is one of those calls that "common sense" kicks in and wants to award a base ... but if the batter put her hand in front of the ball -- even if it was to prevent it from hitting her somewhere else -- that is intentionally moving into the pitch. The point is to get hit ... even if it is to get hit in a different spot.

You could throw it out there and see what happens. Odds are you won't get the call changed at that point (unless a partner convinces the umpire), but maybe you can cause the umpire to get into the rulebook for next time.

 

[CoachCeetar]

I assume NJ uses NFHS, but it doesn't really matter which one.

Which book do you want the rule for?

I assume NJ uses NFHS. I'm new to this all, but it's something I'm gonna bring up within our softball association over the winter. At worst, I'll just buy it and share it as I can with the other coaches. I know all the specifics of the rule adjustments for our level, and I'm pretty good with baseball rules in general (meaning MLB mostly), but it's nice to have a reference, and something to point to. Definitely had a "I'm like 99% sure you called that wrong, but I can't specifically define or recite the rule, so ultimately it's your call" moment on a ruling clarification. (both runners are indeed NOT out when one gets passed on the base paths)


As to your highlighted text, I think you could quibble about whether putting your hand up to block a pitch counts as "moves to get hit by the pitch" specifically if you put the hand up in front of your body/face while flinching backwards. There is not really a way that the ball now hits the batter where it wouldn't otherwise. The hand comes up to protect the body, not specifically the block the pitch. Otherwise you could call any forward motion as a motion to get hit. That seems to be against the spirit of the rule, which is to award a base when the pitch is wild enough that it endangers the batter. The ball is not supposed to be in the batter's box, and benefit of the doubt should be given, rather than looking for technicalities to call it a ball.

 

[The Man In Blue]

NFHS ... need to stitch together a few rules ... and pages ... this is from the 2020 book (hence the highlight which was a change that year)

 

[CoachCeetar]

thanks.

 

[The Man In Blue]

As to your highlighted text, I think you could quibble ...

You could quibble. You'd be wrong, but you could quibble.

I know it is semantics that a coach won't like when it goes against them, but it is what it is. Putting one body part in front of another is a protective move, but it is accomplished by having one part get hit instead of the other part, rather than just trying to get out of the way. That is intentional.

I understand your argument. I could even agree with the logic on some level. But it is still wrong by rule, spirit and letter.

I rank it up there with allowing a batter to interfere by standing still but penalizing them for trying to get out of the way.

I think you could make a better argument under NFHS, as you don't have to make an attempt to move if the ball is entirely in the batter's box.

 

[CoachCeetar]

You could quibble. You'd be wrong, but you could quibble.

I know it is semantics that a coach won't like when it goes against them, but it is what it is. Putting one body part in front of another is a protective move, but it is accomplished by having one part get hit instead of the other part, rather than just trying to get out of the way. That is intentional.

I understand your argument. I could even agree with the logic on some level. But it is still wrong by rule, spirit and letter.

I rank it up there with allowing a batter to interfere by standing still but penalizing them for trying to get out of the way.

I think you could make a better argument under NFHS, as you don't have to make an attempt to move if the ball is entirely in the batter's box.

if batter ducks down and puts her hands on her head trying to get away, but the ball hits her outstretched elbow, by same logic, that's a ball. That feels absurd. Obviously she was NOT trying to get hit.

Does it matter which way the hand is facing? palm out, maybe I buy that's an attempt to deflect/touch the ball, but palm in is definitely a protective, defensive move. What if the hand is flush on the side of the head?

What if you attempt to pull the bat back and down, trying to keep it away from the ball (to avoid the foul ball strike) but instead the ball darts in and hits your hand? Is that "having one part get hit instead of another"? Seems absurd to call that a ball not a HBP.

It's intentionally (or obviously) _hit by the pitch_ not intentionally moving. Moving your hands in front of your face does not raise the % of getting HBP, therefore it's not an intentional HBP. Especially if said hand is moving backwards, away from the ball, at the point of contact.

Again, the point is that the ball is not supposed to in the batter's box, so you need to be very very sure that the batter created a HBP where it wouldn't have otherwise existed.

 

[The Man In Blue]

if batter ducks down

Then she has successfully gotten out of the way …

and puts her hands on her head trying to get away, but the ball hits her outstretched elbow

… and now put herself back into the path of the ball.

I assume NJ uses NFHS, but it doesn't really matter which one.

I didn't see that earlier … It ABSOLUTELY matters as different codes say different things.

 

[CoachCeetar]

It matters in a game, as for this discussion *shrug*

what if she puts her hands on her head, extending her elbow and THEN ducks down trying to avoid it, but it hits her. Did she duck first, or lift her elbow first? What if she literally dives out of the way, off to the side, and the ball hits her foot (the only part still in the batter's box) as it comes up? her foot came up so that's an intentional motion? that's absurd.

What if it's low, practically spiked, and the batter jumps straight up to avoid it, hands in the air. The ball hits a divot weird and shoots up high, hitting the batter's hand. Intentional motion?

By that logic, any shuffling of the feet to avoid a low HBP would be an "intentional motion" and just a ball.

I like the change to allow no need to get out of the way in the batter's box.

USSSA says "intentional" NFHS says "obvious" . a flailing elbow when ducking is not an obvious attempt to get hit. nor is it an "intentional move to get hit" it's an intentional move, obviously, they all are. But it's not with the intention to GET HIT. It doesn't say "intentional move that results in a hit".

Unless you're certain the batter moved that way with the sole purpose of getting a HBP, that if they didn't want to get hit they wouldn't have moved, it's a HBP.