Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NFump
6.05 A batter is out when: (h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory....etc, etc. This doesn't have anything to do with the original sitch. Wrong rule cite.
An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch. Another incorrect rule cite.
Bold letters are more appealing than ALL CAPS. What I'd really like you to do is read the rule book at least once. It would really help with the incorrect rule cites. Thanks in advance and have a nice day.
|
-----------
Try reading the entire RULE 6.05.h. You don't twist my words, you cut them short to your advantage. Perhaps the BOLDNESS of this statement will clarify things for YOU. After stating there is nothing SIMILAR about my statements, are your going to acuse me of making up the rules like your PARTNERS do?
---
(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire's judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play; If a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If batted ball hits part of broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball.
If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not. In cases where the batting helmet is accidentally hit with a batted or thrown ball, the ball remains in play the same as if it has not hit the helmet. If a batted ball strikes a batting helmet or any other object foreign to the natural ground while on foul territory, it is a foul ball and the ball is dead. If, in the umpire's judgment, there is intent on the part of a baserunner to interfere with a batted or thrown ball by dropping the helmet or throwing it at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead and runners would return to last base legally touched.
---
"An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch."
Again, another foolish assertion on your part and entirely incorrect. One has everything to do with the original sitch and the other is entirely SIMILAR to the first, unlike the HR comment which you are defending so vigorously.
---
"Another incorrect rule cite."
I have only cited 3 rules and all 3 pertain to the original sitch as enforced by the UMPIRES on the playing field at the time. I was NOT there. I am only pointing OUT how those umpires who were there may believe their actions were RIGHT {FED Rules 2-21 and 7-3-6}. I merely quoted MLB OBR 6.05.h when a very respected member asked about the ruling authority (OBR).
You may agree with others that these rule may have been improperly enforced. Those who disagree were not there and must know the GULF BREEZE version of events was a tainted version of the events. The TRUE version of events has yet to appear on this thread, so we may never really know what may have happened.
In the meantime, I have correctly pointed out the discrepancy in the rulings between one set of rules and another in the SAME rulebook affected the play on the actual ballfield. If more experienced and brighter minds than me do not want to change the rule book to address the conflicting interpretations, then so be it. It is so easy to let it go at that. But if those umpires got the call wrong and it was such a simple call to make; then someone TALLER than me should address the issue.