From: IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ryan R Robbins)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: ANSWER: RULEBOOK TRIVIA 17
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:15:06 GMT
 <trn.714836203@warper.jhuapl.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System

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.

     (If I'm wrong, could someone please quote the exact rule which
     defines breaking the plane of the plate as an attempt to hit
     the ball by the batter?)

     With that, we go back to rule 6.08 (b), which states:

          6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to
          first base without liability to be put out
          (provided he advances 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 [...]

     Rule 2.00 defines "strike zone" as "that space over home plate
     which is between the batters armpits and the top of his knees
     when he assumes his natural stance [...]"

     Had rule 6.08 said "The ball is a strike" instead of "The ball
     is in the strike zone", your call would be correct.  But the
     two terms have different definitions.


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.

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 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.

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.

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.

+===============================================================+
||   RYAN ROBBINS                    INTERNET:                 ||
||   UNIVERSITY OF MAINE             IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU   ||
+===============================================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball