Moral Situation Involving Baseball

[PeteZaHut]

In baseball, when a batter is hit by a pitch, he is awarded first base. However, the rule is that the batter must try to get out of the way of the ball in order to be awarded first base. The problem is that there is no way for the umpire to judge whether or not a batter really attempted to get out of the way when the ball is coming at 90 mph. My situation is that if you are the batter, and you see that the ball is going to hit you, and you decide not to get out of the way because you know the umpire will let you go to first base. Is that cheating or is that just letting the umpire make the decision?

 

[Binary]

Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you’re playing for money.

 

[lak611]

I really do not think that batters would have time to ponder whether they should or should not try to get out of the was of a 90 MPH fastball. It requires a split second decision. They could second-guess themselves after the fact but not before; therefore, since they were unable to ponder the circumstances and make a decision before the fact, no sin was committed.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

In baseball, when a batter is hit by a pitch, he is awarded first base. However, the rule is that the batter must try to get out of the way of the ball in order to be awarded first base. The problem is that there is no way for the umpire to judge whether or not a batter really attempted to get out of the way when the ball is coming at 90 mph. My situation is that if you are the batter, and you see that the ball is going to hit you, and you decide not to get out of the way because you know the umpire will let you go to first base. Is that cheating or is that just letting the umpire make the decision?

I would not think that in the .83 seconds that you have to decide you could really have the time to determine your culpability. Could you see someone turning to the ump and saying “Ump, no I should not have been hit, I had time to get out of the way. Just make that a ball, do not award me first base.”

 

[mchale]

I don’t know if it would be a sin or not, but I certainly wouldn’t want to argue it with a guy who willingly took a 90+ mph pitch. Batters can and have been killed by getting hit by a pitch.

–
Bill

 

[Potato1]

I don’t know if it would be a sin or not, but I certainly wouldn’t want to argue it with a guy who willingly took a 90+ mph pitch. Batters can and have been killed by getting hit by a pitch.

–
Bill

Who?

 

[lak611]

Who?

Ray Chapman

 

[Jay2]

It’s not cheating - it’s being stupid!

Speaking as the father of a 12yo who’s 3 stitches just dissolved…
(got pasted in the cheek by a wierd breaking 50mph Little League fastball - he actually ducked INTO it…)

If you’ve got the cahone’s to take a 90MPH ball in the chops/ribs/arm/whatever, and risk permanant injury to your career & body… you can take your free 90 foot walk - odds are you won’t make it 'round the horn anyway.

 

[hecd2]

In baseball, when a batter is hit by a pitch, he is awarded first base. However, the rule is that the batter must try to get out of the way of the ball in order to be awarded first base. The problem is that there is no way for the umpire to judge whether or not a batter really attempted to get out of the way when the ball is coming at 90 mph. My situation is that if you are the batter, and you see that the ball is going to hit you, and you decide not to get out of the way because you know the umpire will let you go to first base. Is that cheating or is that just letting the umpire make the decision?

Avoid this moral problem by giving up the cissy game of baseball and taking up cricket which is a manly game that avoids such moral dilemmas by making it legitimate for the bowler (aka pitcher in baseball) to attempt to hit the batsman (aka batter in baseball) with the 90mph+ ball. If he succeeds, and the result is bruises or blood, all praise is due to the bowler: the idea that the batsman should profit by being hit is entirely alien to cricket - if he’s hit, that’s just tough, and he’s expected to grin and bear it.

Alec

 

[Melissa]

Honestly, I don’t think there’s enough time–particularly in the majors–to consciously choose to ‘take one for the team’.

Middle son was playing in the Little League minors’ All-Star tonight, and one of his teammates was hit square in the helmet … really sick sound, but the kid was ok (good equipment, I guess)–took his base and went on to steal second shortly thereafter & ended up coming home before the inning was over. (Son’s team lost 11-9 … but I’m still proud of my son who’s the youngest on his team & made All Stars.) I’m not sure how fast these kids are pitching, but it’s going to be WELL under a major league pitcher’s speed.

When oldest son was still playing (he’s now too old for Little League)–he’s a lefty, and when he was in minors we always joked that his secret weapon to getting on base was getting hit by a pitch. It didn’t happen so much when he moved up to majors (11-12yo kids)–I guess the 9-10yos just didn’t have the knack to adjust to pitching to lefties, because some of those pitches were SO inside that they were behind him (but maybe a righty would’ve chased those outside balls).

 

[thomasf]

If a ball goes over the fence in fair territory, it’s a homerun. If I’m a centerfielder that KNOWS the ball is going over the fence, yet I leap up and reach over to catch the ball, thus putting the batter out instead of allowing him the homerun, is that a bad moral decision?

If I deliberately slide into 2nd base so that it causes the player to not turn the double play at first, is that a bad moral decision? If I know a batter can’t resist a fastball high and outside and I throw a changeup that drops out of the reach of his bat at the last second, is that a bad moral decision? If I slide into home plate and the ump calls me safe but yet I know the tag was applied first, do I jump up and call myself out to make a proper moral decision?

This whole thing can get rather ridiculous.

 

[thistle]

Baseball?? Oh yes! That’s the American game that grew from the British ladies game called rounders!!

 

[Potato1]

Baseball?? Oh yes! That’s the American game that grew from the British ladies game called rounders!!

britain, oh yeah that’s that cute little country that we whooped up on and now protect like a little, "not quite right " brother that follows us around all the time wanting to play with the big boys.

Yall talk funny over dere.

 

[thistle]

britain, oh yeah that’s that cute little country that we whooped up on and now protect like a little, "not quite right " brother that follows us around all the time wanting to play with the big boys.

Yall talk funny over dere.

Judging by your post you are the ones who talk “funny”.
By the way I notice that America has no major sport that originated in America. Ah well!

 

[Potato1]

Judging by your post you are the ones who talk “funny”.
By the way I notice that America has no major sport that originated in America. Ah well!

You keep inventing them… We will dominate the ones we like, in our spare time between being the toughest, richest, fairest and busiest country in the world… (just to bad we can’t be the Holiest) In the mean time I’d like to see one of those ladies you speak of take a 90+ MPH (that a whole lot of KPH for you euro folk) to the head, face, shoulder, back gut or heaven forbid chest.

 

[mchale]

Judging by your post you are the ones who talk “funny”.
By the way I notice that America has no major sport that originated in America. Ah well!

Realistically, most modern sports have evolved from some earlier game. While modern Association Football and Rugby Football were both certainly invented in England, no one really knows where football in its most elemental form was invented. Likewise, while American Football evolved from Rugby, I would say its rules have diverged enough to be considered a new invention.

–
Bill

 

[bobzills]

In baseball, when a batter is hit by a pitch, he is awarded first base. However, the rule is that the batter must try to get out of the way of the ball in order to be awarded first base. The problem is that there is no way for the umpire to judge whether or not a batter really attempted to get out of the way when the ball is coming at 90 mph. My situation is that if you are the batter, and you see that the ball is going to hit you, and you decide not to get out of the way because you know the umpire will let you go to first base. Is that cheating or is that just letting the umpire make the decision?

The pitcher is wrong by throwing the ball at the batter.

 

[lak611]

The pitcher is wrong by throwing the ball at the batter.

The pitcher does not usually intentionally throw at the batter. Even the best pitcher will have control issues sometimes. A pitch that is meant to be inside goes too far inside. Pitchers that hit too many batters or appear to be throwing at batters will usually be ejected by the umpire (and frequently suspended and fined afterwards).

 

[BillP]

The pitcher is wrong by throwing the ball at the batter.

Hey, if a batter shows up my pitcher by standing at the plate and watching a Homer go out of the park, or if he crowds the plate (my pitcher OWNS those 17 inches!) he’s gonna get brushed back.

 

[bobzills]

The pitcher does not usually intentionally throw at the batter. Even the best pitcher will have control issues sometimes. A pitch that is meant to be inside goes too far inside. Pitchers that hit too many batters or appear to be throwing at batters will usually be ejected by the umpire (and frequently suspended and fined afterwards).

There have been cases where the pitcher intentionally throws a ball at the batter. I think that this is seriously wrong.