Around here they do. And they all have a pair of hands growing from them. And if someone plucks one of those bats and get's hit in the hands...

okay, so what if the ball hits the bat (as earlier described), richochets and then strikes the runner?

I know I'm being ridichulous, but hey its quitting time. My brains gone.

In fair territory? Dead ball, runner's out. Unless it's already passed an infielder, et cetera, et cetera.

akalsey,

Sorry, <b>wrong answer</b> on the helmet (and the bat).

Right answer on the "rule book" double.

Reference (MLBUM):

"<i><b>6.13 BATTED BALL STRIKES HELMET OR BAT</b>

If a batted ball strikes a loose helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet.

If a batted ball strikes a helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in foul territory, it is a foul ball.</i>"

Notice it does not say that the ball has become "fair" if it hits the "detached" helmet in fair territory. It still has the possibility of ultimately becoming either a fair or foul ball depending on what happens <b>after</b> it hit the helmet.

JM

That might be a hard call to get anyone to swallow. Since not many people actually have (or have even seen) the MLBUM, I have a hard time making calls that appear to conflict with the rulebook based simply on an interpretation of a book used by MLB umpires in pro ball.

akalsey,

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I'm presuming you're saying that calling a batted ball which hits a helmet which has fallen off a batter (no intent by the batter) and subsequently proves itself to be a foul ball is going to be a "hard sell".

If that is correct, what rule do you think this appears to be in conflict with? It is certainly <b>not</b> in conflict with the Rule 2.0 definitions of "Fair Ball" and "Foul Ball" - it is in accordance with them.

I'm also going to let you in on a little secret. <b>Most</b> of the people at the game have never seen a <b>rulebook</b> either. That's why we have <b>umpires</b> at the games. To make the <b>correct</b> calls, in accordance with the rules, whether or not they are "popular" calls or what people "thought" the rule was.

JM

I'm pretty sure that the same statement is in PBUC/NAPBL

Akalsey (and others) - please see Dave's post on Ozzy's thread on a very similar situation. It gives numerous references to show why a moving bat hitting the ball a 2nd time in fair territory is an out (and why it's different if a moving ball hits a stationary bat in fair territory).

You put you dugout in the infield?!!!

Okay, Coach, you've got me. I was misapplying "object foreign to the natural ground" to the fair ball rule. The ball is foul, add a strike to the batter's count, all runners return to their TOP base.

Of course now I've got the other coach in my ear and I've got to sit here and eat crow for a few moments. At least this is easier to fix than if I'd called a fair ball foul.

akalsey,

Actually, I empathize. I had a very difficult time getting that concept through <b>my</b> thick skull when someone first tried to explain it to me.

JM