View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 07, 2010, 08:52pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
johnny & DG,

While I agree that UMPTT was correct and that 6.04(h) covers the situation, INTENT is not relevant to the ruling.

JM
"If the batter-runner drops the bat and the ball rolls against the stationary 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, the same as if it had not hit the bat." MLBUM

Johnny's comment was different than mine so I stand by mine.

Last edited by DG; Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 08:56pm.
Reply With Quote