POLL~To move or Get hit by pitches~

[daywalkerdad]

There is paying attention to how umpires are officiating 'this game' and utilizing how it is happening.

Example: umpire keeps calling pitches that are in the opposite batter's box a strike. So a pitching location may become that spot 'this game'
particularly because the Umpire is calling it, not because it is a strike to throw pitches inside a batter's box.

Think the same scenario happens with HBP encounters.
When teams see an Umpire will always award a batter first base therein lies the example of opportunity to utilize how the Umpire is officiating.
It can become strategy with a bruise.

The scenarios are not the same in my opinion. In this case the pitcher is not violating a rule.

In the case of a coach telling a player to stand in the river to get hit, the coach is telling the batter to violate a rule.

In both cases the Ump maybe at fault, but in only one case is the player violating a rule.

 

[_MIA_]

The scenarios are not the same in my opinion. In this case the pitcher is not violating a rule.

In the case of a coach telling a player to stand in the river to get hit, the coach is telling the batter to violate a rule.

In both cases the Ump maybe at fault, but in only one case is the player intentionally violating a rule.

IMO, my bolded add to your statement is important when it comes to cheating. For example if somebody leaves 1st base early on a steal attempt just because they made a mistake and timed the pitcher incorrectly, I wouldn't call that cheating even though they violated a rule. It might be semantics but the word cheating is pretty harsh so I think intent matters..

 

[daywalkerdad]

IMO, my bolded add to your statement is important when it comes to cheating. For example if somebody leaves 1st base early on a steal attempt just because they made a mistake and timed the pitcher incorrectly, I wouldn't call that cheating even though they violated a rule. It might be semantics but the word cheating is pretty harsh so I think intent matters..

Yes, two components 1. Breaking the rule, the other is dishonestly.

 

[radness]

The scenarios are not the same in my opinion. In this case the pitcher is not violating a rule.

In the case of a coach telling a player to stand in the river to get hit, the coach is telling the batter to violate a rule.

In both cases the Ump maybe at fault, but in only one case is the player violating a rule.

Nothing would be a violation if the umpire never called it.
So gave examples of how umpires call the game can produce different 'strategies'.
The batters feet example fits also:
could have a batter standing on a batters box line. Or crossing a foot over it and that could also be an example of when an Umpire would officiate those situations or not call anything.
Batters can step outside of the box when they're hitting unless the Umpire calls it.
Crowding the plate could also be considered a strategy.

 

[daywalkerdad]

Nothing would be a violation if the umpire never called it.

Are you saying nothing is a violation unless you get caught and penalized?
Some people have this philosophy in life.

 

[radness]

Are you saying nothing is a violation unless you get caught and penalized?
Some people have this philosophy in life.

I am making a point about how people will strategize pending how the officials are officiating.

*What the rule book says doesn't matter
( there is no consequence)or is useless unless an Umpire is applying it. Umpires judgment stands in the game whether someone thinks it's a violation or not.

I've also said many times in my life
'the umpire is right even when they're wrong'.

Meaning what they say stands in the game. Right wrong or whatever.

 

[daywalkerdad]

I am making a point about how people will strategize pending how the officials are officiating.

*What the rule book says doesn't matter
( there is no consequence)or is useless unless an Umpire is applying it. Umpires judgment stands in the game whether someone thinks it's a violation or not.

Saying in a sporting competition if the Umpire is not calling something that is a violation *then it is allowed to happen.

I've also said many times in my life
'the umpire is right even when they're wrong'
and this discussion is an example of that.

It is still a violation, just not enforced. Just like speeding past a cop, weather or not he pulls you over does not change the fact you were speeding.

The specific violation I mentioned the ump has no bearing. Why? Because the first player the coach instructs to break the rule the coach has no idea if it will be called or not. Thus the strategy was to break a rule and hope they get away with it.

We played in a tournament that did not check Birth certificates last year. Since it would be allowed to happen, would loading up a 12u team with 14 year olds be a strategy? I think almost all would agree this would be cheating.

The covid year we played several games with one ump. Some coaches would have players leave early since it could not be caught. Some would call this strategy. In reality, morally it similar to loading a team with older players. In both cases the team decided to break a rule that was not being enforced and have the philosophy it is only a rule if it is enforced.

It comes down to this not just in sports but in life.
Either you believe rules should be followed.
Or it is not a rule unless it can/is enforced.

Win because you are better playing within the rules. What the rule book says does matter, A player should never be instructed to break a rule.

 

[_MIA_]

It is still a violation, just not enforced. Just like speeding past a cop, weather or not he pulls you over does not change the fact you were speeding.

The specific violation I mentioned the ump has no bearing. Why? Because the first player the coach instructs to break the rule the coach has no idea if it will be called or not. Thus the strategy was to break a rule and hope they get away with it.

We played in a tournament that did not check Birth certificates last year. Since it would be allowed to happen, would loading up a 12u team with 14 year olds be a strategy? I think almost all would agree this would be cheating.

The covid year we played several games with one ump. Some coaches would have players leave early since it could not be caught. Some would call this strategy. In reality, morally it similar to loading a team with older players. In both cases the team decided to break a rule that was not being enforced and have the philosophy it is only a rule if it is enforced.

It comes down to this not just in sports but in life.
Either you believe rules should be followed.
Or it is not a rule unless it can/is enforced.

Win because you are better playing within the rules. What the rule book says does matter, A player should never be instructed to break a rule.

Just to play devils advocate, where does a pitcher purposely throwing pitches two balls off the plate because she knows the umpire is calling those strikes (eg not enforcing the rule defined strike zone ) fall in this..

 

[daywalkerdad]

Just to play devils advocate, where does a pitcher purposely throwing pitches two balls off the plate because she knows the umpire is calling those strikes (eg not enforcing the rule defined strike zone ) fall in this..

What rule did the pitcher break?

 

[_MIA_]

What rule did the pitcher break?

The defined strike zone..on purpose to get a called strike.Like I said I am just playing devil’s advocate here