A few days ago,
HP Umpire Bob Davidson ejected the Brewers' Dale Svuem and Ron Roenicke for arguing a ball call under Rule 6.08(b). Though this call was ultimately ruled "incorrect," Davidson properly enforced Rule 6.08(b) for what he thought was a batter not attempting to avoid being touched by a pitched ball. Specifically, Rule 6.08(b) states:
6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when - (b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball
Last night, the
A's lost to the Mets on a walk off hit by pitch in the bottom of the 13th inning. UEFLer
Penwhale points out this hit by pitch might not have been merited:
Should this have been called under Rule 6.08(b)(2)? I found this call to be pretty questionable...
Discussion Point: What is your opinion of the A's-Mets walk off HBP sequence? Was this call proper? We have already determined Davidson's previous call to be incorrect. Recall the Rule specifies a batter shall not be awarded first base if he "makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball." The Rules do not specify any requirement in regards to degree of attempt to avoid contact, just that a batter is not entitled to first base if he makes
no attempt to avoid contact, and that his movements must be consistent with an attempt to
avoid, rather than initiate, contact. Therefore, a batter who flinches away from the pitch may be interpreted as having made an attempt to avoid contact, even if his actual physical displacement is minimal. In any case, what's your call?
18 comments :
This is a little different, because Porter can't really see that he barely moved his leg from his position...looks like a questionable call to me too.
Switch Davidson and Porter's calls and we would be golden.
"The rules do not specify any requirement", that is straight from your mouth. Therefore who the heck are we to JUDGE the the umpires JUDGEMENT if the batter made any attempt to avoid or not. As I have posted in the Davidson call, in my book, an attempt to avoid is to get out of the path of the ball, simply turning your back is not avoiding, it's postponing.
This particular "HBP" watching slow mo, you can actually see the batter move into the pitch. It's quite visible in slow-mo, but at real speed it wasn't near as visible until after seeing the slow-mo. I don't like the call here, however, I can completely see under the "norm" how this is so rarely called, and wasn't seen for what it was. I don't like it, but guess what, that's the game of baseball. Not that it would have done any good, but nobody seemed to even mention it on the field, sure the announcers said something, but they have the "advantage" of another look.
It.s a dumb rule....the burden is on the pitcher to throw the ball between the two white lines....if the batter doesn't lean and pitcher hits him why should the pitcher be rewarded? As an umpire it's grabbing the crappy end of the stick calling it.
Is it really an attempt to avoid when the player is simply redirecting where the pitch hits so that it hurts less and gets a free base? Why don't I just wiggle my toes and let that count as an attempt to avoid the pitch since I moved a body part?
Davidson's call was correct, and Porter's call was not. I'm a Mets fan, and I disagree with Porter's call.
I like Porter's enthusiasm; unfortunately, it was the wrong call.
You can all hang me out to dry for this one "that's not in the rules, etc. etc."...but here it goes anyway:
I don't care how little a batter moves, when he's lined up THAT far inside and the pitcher STILL hits him - that's an HBP.
@Mark, can't you also reasonably infer that by lining up so far inside, the batter has made an attempt to avoid getting hit? I mean, if the batter was crowding the plate, doesn't move, and gets hit, that's one thing, but if he's reasonably inside, hasn't he already made his attempt by virtue of being so far off the plate?
I kinda feel like I have to take both sides of this one. While I have made the Davidson call, there have been times that I have sent a batter to first without an attempt. Here's why:
Most of the time, when a kid gets hit, I can see it coming. I assume that if I see it, the kid should see it, and try to move. But sometimes, especiall on elbows and knees, late movement produces a HBP that I don't see coming, and I therefor assume that the kid didn't see it coming, and won't penalize the kid.
I'm a super-huge A's fan, and I think this ending sucks. But I also think that there is no way that a hitter could see that pitch hitting him, and would not blame the hitter for never moving an inch. The fact that a major league hitter did move is the only reason that I find something suspect here at all. I just can't see him clearly moving into the pitch in real time. And that's what counts. Real time, cause it's all the ump had.
@4:43 Anonymous and Mark, I agree with you guys 100%. Why should the pitcher ever be given the benefit of the doubt if he throws it into the batter's box. If the batter leans an elbow out over the plate ok, that's a different matter, but if they turn their back on the ball so as not to be hit in the face or chest, how can you possibly fault a player for that?
The reason, all you blind defenders of umpires, that one almost never sees that call is because it's a common sense ruling: the pitcher threw a pitch 6-8 inches inside, they deserve the runner to go to first.
Pitching inside is part of the game. When you actually hit someone, that's okay, but this rule is established so pitchers can pitch inside without having to worry about batters "taking one for the team". We can't take away the inside pitch from the MLB either, In my opinion.
By convention, that is definetly a hit by pitch. If it's not, then we should see "stay here" called at least 100 times a season.
No way -- NO WAY -- I'd keep the batter at the plate when the pitch was "inside the batter's box".
Especially in the bottom of the 13th. ;-)
This is not college baseball gentlemen...this is professional baseball!!! If you're going to keep a guy in the box it had better be egregious.
Davidson was wrong, Porter was probably wrong, but I can understand it more.
Look folks, the matter here is that the rule 6.08b exemptions place the burden of proof, so to speak, on the batter NOT doing something rather than on the batter DOING something. In other words, saying there's no HBP because the batter didn't attempt isn't good enough. There only can be no HBP if the batter completely failed to attempt avoidance - or that a batter succeeded in not making an attempt. That means the batter would have had to do everything he could in order to get hit - stay where he was, not flinch - not notice - even move into the pitch.
It's a negative clause exemption - a double negative in different sections of the sentence: the batter is NOT awarded if he does NOT move. That is not the same as awarding the batter first if he does move.
I was the one bringing this up, and I believe that in slow motion it's clear that the batter moved INTO the pitch (although whether that can be done at real speed is something that we can't argue). There's a difference of moving away and moving into the pitch...
It's nice to see a mix of responses - especially as I have a mixed response!
These guys throw hard and a good hitter hangs in there as long as he can. That gives the batter almost NO time to "get out of the way".
So - what do I look for?!
I will hold a guy back if:
1) it's a changeup right at him and he just puts the fat part of his shoulder into the ball
2) they lean into the pitch (or the pitch is over the plate)
3) or they do that College move where they turn their back and "inadvertently" throw their arm or leg closer to the plate (wow - some college coaches teach that move like it's the best thing since sliced bread!!! That move and the one where on a steal of second they swing and "follow through" right over the plate)
In slow motion you can see the batter "pushing" his leg up toward the pitch but I doubt the plate guy could see that. Everything else about that play (in other words - everything the plate guy could see) tells me - give him the base.
Maybe it was the wrong call but there's no way you could fault the umpire as there was no way he could see that tiny move by the player's leading leg.
I love it...NO WAY I make the batter stay in the box when the pitch is that far inside. Couldn't be more true.
MLB pitchers usually go 60-70% strikes if you look at stats (I know that includes foul-offs, etc.) If he's missing by 6-8 inches inside with the bases juiced that's poor strategy, at best. This is why we play 9, or sometimes 13 innings, because the strategy of the whole game is what matters!
Oh, and while we're at it. Davidson was wrong. With the money involved in MLB, even for the Umps, they are entertainers. We will judge them, and they'll laugh all the way to the bank!
Post a Comment