From: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo)
Subject: Re: ANSWER: RULEBOOK TRIVIA 17
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:27:52 GMT

IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ryan R Robbins) writes:

>trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:

>     Sorry, have to disagree here.  At least in the '85 rules,
>     there is no rule or definition explicitly stating that a bat
>     crossing the parallel plane in front of home plate is to be
>     considered an attempt by the batter to hit the ball.  It seems
>     to be an unofficial guideline followed by the umps in
>     determining whether an attempt to check a swing was done in
>     time, but it is not an explicit rule.

[...]

>You're right, there is no explicit rule in the published rule book
>which dictates a swing is when the bat head crosses a parallel
>plane with the front of the plate. However, major league umpires
>are taught to call a strike when the bat head crosses this plane.

So there is no explicit rule requiring this to be a strike, but it is a
universally accepted guideline.  Now, does that guideline say anything
about the degree of control necessary when that bat crosses the plane; i.e.
does *dropping* the bat over that line count as a strike?  Does a dropped
bat that rolls across the plate turn a ball into a strike?  I doubt it.

>You overlooked the part in Rule 6.08b which says "He is touched by
>a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit." I don't know how
>I can explain it, other than to say that on all check swings
>batters decided they did not want to swing, and yet about half of
>the time they go around, even though they may not have wanted to.

You've overlooked another dissimilarity.  In the case of a check swing,
the batter is still in control of his bat.  In the case you gave, however,
the bat fell across home plate.  You also stated that the batter was
trying to avoid being hit, which I can only assume was to be considered
the play as the *umpire* saw it.

>You have to draw a line somewhere. You can't say to a batter that
>has just been hit after bringing the bat around "Were you trying to
>hit that pitch?" Nine times out of ten he's going to lie and say
>no.

Naturally.  But I don't have to draw a line blindly.  The "bat crosses plate"
guideline is a means by which the umpire is given discretion to define a
point of no return for the batter.  Had the rules committee intended for this
to be a hard and fast definition, it would be explicitly stated in the rules.

>My question to everyone out there is: Why not declare an
>unintentional foul ball a ball? We've all seen the play before:
>pitch running up and in on the hitter, he ducks, but the ball nicks
>his bat and is fouled off. There is no swing there at all, but it
>is still a foul ball and considered a strike with less than two
>strikes in the count.

Because there *are* explicit definitions which require this to be a strike.
Is it unjust?  Perhaps.  But the play is sufficiently rare, and does
sufficiently little harm to the batter, that it is probably not worth the
bother to turn this into a call requiring the umpire's judgement.

>When a batter pulls the bat head out over the plate, an umpire can
>only make one assumption, and this assumption has to be applied in
>every case: the batter was swinging.

Again, this was not the case in your scenario.  The bat *fell* across
home plate.  Had you stated that the batter tried to check his swing while
maintaining control of the bat (or that the bat flew out of his hands towards
the stands, showing obvious force in the swing), I may have been willing to
concede the point.
--
Tony Nardo,		   INET: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu, trn@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
 Johns Hopkins Univ./APL   UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcomm!trn
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball