HBP or Strike

[Comp]

The ball is dead on the hit by pitch, if the batter had not started a swing prior to being hit there cannot be a swing after the fact of being hit.

[GIMNEPIWO]

The ball is dead on the hit by pitch, if the batter had not started a swing prior to being hit there cannot be a swing after the fact of being hit.

So then:
Quote:
This ump said she swung, but said the ball hit her first (ran into it) and awarded her the base.

Guess I would have to see the play in person because I cant see how the umpire could say she swung at the pitch, but was hit first and awarded the base.

Like you said, HTBT ... Who knows why someone would swing after getting plunked, but stranger things have happened ...

[MTR]

Like you said, HTBT ... Who knows why someone would swing after getting plunked, but stranger things have happened ...

It isn't just swinging after that may add to confusion, but getting hit during that may be the issue. I think Comp may have already mentioned the "start" of the swing.

While hitting the batter does immediately create a dead-ball situation, if the batter was attempting to strike the ball when hit, it is a strike. For it not to be, the ball would have had to hit the batter before s/he even moved the bat in a manner associated with a swing. And I agree that such a thing would be strange to see.

[eclipse09]

Thanks for all the input.

My eyes may be failing me, but I was pretty sure the batter started the swing before being hit. I rarely argue with umps (unless it is my kid pitching...just kidding) and went with his explanation.

Thanks again.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Thanks for all the input.

My eyes may be failing me, but I was pretty sure the batter started the swing before being hit. I rarely argue with umps (unless it is my kid pitching...just kidding) and went with his explanation.

Thanks again.

Good thing ... It's a judgement call and argueing could have gotten you an early exit ... If thats the way he saw it, based on the rules his call was correct even if it was wrong.

[AlwaysImprove]

Call may have been "per the rules", but no one is going to believe it.

If you were that umpire and you had to tell other people knowledgeable about the game, would you actually try to make the case that the girl swung, but was hit by the pitch before she swung?

This call happens way to often. Umpires feel bad calling Dead Ball Strike on a little girl. Even though that is what the rules say is the correct call. Then if a knowledgeable coach questions them on it, they head for the "In my judgement, the pitch hit her before she swung." That is a pretty lame rationalization.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Call may have been "per the rules", but no one is going to believe it.

If you were that umpire and you had to tell other people knowledgeable about the game, would you actually try to make the case that the girl swung, but was hit by the pitch before she swung?

This call happens way to often. Umpires feel bad calling Dead Ball Strike on a little girl. Even though that is what the rules say is the correct call. Then if a knowledgeable coach questions them on it, they head for the "In my judgement, the pitch hit her before she swung." That is a pretty lame rationalization.

You're right ... At the last rules clinic I went to there was a point of emphasis about not enforcing the rules if it would upset people knowledgeable about the game ...

[UmpSteve]

Call may have been "per the rules", but no one is going to believe it.

If you were that umpire and you had to tell other people knowledgeable about the game, would you actually try to make the case that the girl swung, but was hit by the pitch before she swung?

This call happens way to often. Umpires feel bad calling Dead Ball Strike on a little girl. Even though that is what the rules say is the correct call. Then if a knowledgeable coach questions them on it, they head for the "In my judgement, the pitch hit her before she swung." That is a pretty lame rationalization.

You're right ... At the last rules clinic I went to there was a point of emphasis about not enforcing the rules if it would upset people knowledgeable about the game ...

You may have that reversed in your understanding AI's post. Pretty sure they didn't tell you DON'T enforce the dead ball strike (or any other) rules because they are (only little) girls, but then make a lame excuse "in my judgment" if challenged by someone that knows better??

[AlwaysImprove]

Call may have been "per the rules", but no one is going to believe it.

If you were that umpire and you had to tell other people knowledgeable about the game, would you actually try to make the case that the girl swung, but was hit by the pitch before she swung?

This call happens way to often. Umpires feel bad calling Dead Ball Strike on a little girl. Even though that is what the rules say is the correct call. Then if a knowledgeable coach questions them on it, they head for the "In my judgement, the pitch hit her before she swung." That is a pretty lame rationalization.

You're right ... At the last rules clinic I went to there was a point of emphasis about not enforcing the rules if it would upset people knowledgeable about the game ...

The clinic i attended made it a point of emphasis. They told us feel free to laugh at any umpire that claims "The pitch hit the kid, then the kid swang the bat. So no dead ball strike."

[ajaywill]

Call may have been "per the rules", but no one is going to believe it.

If you were that umpire and you had to tell other people knowledgeable about the game, would you actually try to make the case that the girl swung, but was hit by the pitch before she swung?

This call happens way to often. Umpires feel bad calling Dead Ball Strike on a little girl. Even though that is what the rules say is the correct call. Then if a knowledgeable coach questions them on it, they head for the "In my judgement, the pitch hit her before she swung." That is a pretty lame rationalization.

What makes your judgement any better than the umpire's judgement?