Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by BigUmp56
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
"If, in the umpire's judgement, THERE IS INTENT on the part of a base runner to interfere with a thrown ball by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched."
Again, he may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball, but he did.
|
You're trying to say this ruling pertains to a bat or helmet still in the batters possesion when the ruling clearly states that it applies to a thrown or dropped bat or helmet.
You see this when the rulings says by throwing either at the ball.
Tim.
[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:33 AM]
|
And the ruling says that as a result of throwing the bat or helmet, the batter is out correct.
So the discussion here is NOT the ruling, but one's interpretation of intent. I am still with WWB, batter out.
|
I posted my previous post before seeing this one.
The ruling very clearly says that if we feel there was intent in the case of a thrown bat, that the runner is out. Then you clearly state that even though the BR "may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball" you will call him out. THAT'S what I don't get. You clearly know what interp applies, and are intentionally doing the opposite.
If this kid INTENDED to hit the thrown ball (and threw his bat PRIOR to the ball being thrown!), and managed to HIT it... I'm impressed. Clearly the batter was doing what he has done hundreds of times - just throwing the bat back to the dugout after his time at bat was over.
How can you infer intent from that?