Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
You are confusing the simple word careless and the rulebook use of careless.
Let me say it this way. If the batter intentionally throws the bat - we have nothing careless in either direction. And if said bat hits the catcher, you'd better be calling either interference on the batter (for throwing the bat intentionally and interfering with a play) or obstruction on the catcher (for getting in the way of an attempt to hit the ball). If the bat-throw is intentional --- you'd better have one or the other.
Careless, in the rulebook, it intended to include cases where the batter unintentionally or negligently let the bat go.
|
I hear what you're saying but still think that it could still apply even by the rulebook use (which isn't explicitly defined either). Attempting to hit a pitch with a thrown bat that hits someone (assuming it's not CI), while not unintentional, could be reasonably argued to be negligent IMO. If it's interference with a play, that's the better and more straightforward call, but if there was no play and hence no interference, it could still be careless. Or malicious, if he actually targeted the catcher, but that's a different story.