Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Ummm, not really. The ball didn't hit the bat. Rather, the bat hit the ball.
Yes, I know I'm teetering on the edge of sillyness. But things are slow right now...  |
I'm not trolling or trying to be difficult here, but Manny has a point.
Forget the OP for a second and consider the rules about a ball striking a discarded bat or vice versa... we treat one one way (ball strikes discarded bat = play on) and one another way (discarded bat strikes ball = out) a completely different way.
The rule Rich quotes and Ozzy refers too seems to be written to cover the case where a bat breaks, and a detached part of the bat hits a fielder or IS HIT BY the ball, we play on. I don't think this, at all, implies the same ruling if the ball hits the bat.
I see the OP far more analogous to a ball that is hit, hits the ground and comes back up to hit the bat again.
Not saying that either A) the call on the field was wrong or B) the umps should have seen the double-hit. I just don't see the rule you're discussing as applying to this scenario.