[Tim C]

IF a ball that bounced was in some way dead (i.e. for the purpose of a hit batsman) then how on earth could an umpire decide if a ball in the dirt "just short" of the batter's foot hit the ground first or the foot first?

The easy call would be a ball that bounces 10' feet in front of the hitter but what about a ball that hits 1/8" in front of the foot. Both would be "bouncing balls."

This "myth" is based much on the same logic as "the hands are part of the bat". The "hands" logic comes from two different places:

1) In basketball the rules clearly state that the "hand is part of the ball" and,

2) sometimes it is real hard to distinguish if the ball strikes the bat or the hands (or on this play) the ball struck the ground or the foot first. To get away from the hard call some one once said, "Heck, the hands are bat of the bat!" Same with the bouncing pitch.

It seems strange that for some unknown reason people replace logic with myth on things like this.

I am in the Jenkins camp that says "any" ball the bounces and hits the batter is a hit batsman. The ball can take a funny bounce so I really don't worry about the hitter making an effort to get of the way.

Tee