I worked a game last night that I may have blown the call on.

Bottom of the 4th with R1( doesn't really matter though I'm just trying to set the table )
B1 hits a towering pop up between home and first that is over foul territory about 25' up the baseline.
F2 and F3 charge towards the ball attempting to make what should have been an easy putout.

BR is right handed and carries the bat up the baseline before discarding it. The bat is in his left hand and is discarded forward into foul territory. F2 is called off by F3 as F3 continues toward the ball. It appears as if F3 will make an easy catch. The discarded bat has settled under the area the ball will land. As F3 takes his last step before attempting the catch, he slips on the bat and falls missing the ball.

I called the BR out for interference even though I didn't think there was intent on his part to interfere.I considered it " willfull indifference " on his part.

Did I kick this one?

I should add that the reason I described the bat as being "discarded" and not "thrown" is that there was no UC on the batters part as he simply dropped the bat a bit late, and it's momentum carried it forward.

Thanks guys,

Tim.

Not seeing the actual toss of the bat by batter can never be sure, but I have often called interference on a player and then told a coach who is pleading his teams case that interference does't have to be intentional.
If this was any youthball or a game under Fed rules, I think I would call it as you did, if for no other reason to make sure the players are playing safe and a careless toss of the bat can obviouisly cause injury.

He already said it wasn't tossed carelessly.

Tripping over the bag can cause injury also.

Unless you felt the bat was thrown intentionally in the area of where the fielder was going to be, I would have left it alone.

Intent
 

Without intent I have a hard time calling BR out, but I have a hard time visualizing what happened, you were there and that could make a difference.

FED rules do say if a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player to call interference. (7-3-6)but this rule is covering a bat thrown into the field of play on the swing and not simply a dropped bat as the batter runs to first.

Thanks
David

Why is he carrying the bat so far up the baseline?
Most of the time ( not always! ) that bat is dropped or tossed very close to home plate or the dugout, particularly if the batter thinks he is out - or will be.
With the bat in hand that far and then suddenly tossd where the play is happening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am going for batter interference.
As far as I am concerned, based on your description of how it developed, you nailed it.

<i>Why is he carrying the bat so far up the baseline?</i>

A lot of batters carry the bat when it's an "obvious" foul ball or an infield popup. This was a combo.

Rich,
I would agree with you completely.
But I would also say that if it is that " obvious " situation to which you alluded, isn't the B/R watching the ball and jogging down the baseline?
Isn't he watching the play and swearing to himself because he did what he did knowing he is out - or going to be?
I guess I am just thinking that if he knows he is out, he better be sure that if he wants to carry the bat for a jog, he better make sure he doesn't interfere with a play on that ball by " dropping " his bat in somebody's way - intentional or not.

I'm just curious then, at what point do you decide what an acceptable distance is for the bat to go? 5, 10, 15 feet? What if the bat rolls?

OBR: if the bat is on the ground, and there is no intent on the part of the batter and it's in foul territory then it's nothing.

I guess I should have made my question a little more clear.

As the BR advanced toward 1st., he simply discarded the bat toward his own on deck circle with no intention of interfering. I saw him look up at the ball after he hit it, so I knew he had some idea as to where the ball would drop or be caught.

He did not discard the bat at the spot where the play was going to happen, he simply tossed it toward the on deck area, and the bat took an unusual spin and rolled to the point where the play was going to be made.

Although I felt the BR knew the approximate area where the ball could land, it did not look like he directed the bat to that location, so no intent. But, I did feel that he could have certainly made a better effort to discard the bat away from any possible play, as he had plenty of time to do so.

I judged this as "willfull indifference" on his part. My question is, did I call this right by using the logic that in this situation his indifference to the outcome of where the bat would land, caused interference, and by that act alone, was I right in calling him out?

Tim.

Hmmm,
 

It was nuttin' honey . . . no matter what officialtony wants.

Sorry BU, but the batter's not out. If it wasn't intentional to begin with, then you can't fault someone for "willfull indifference" by rule. Either he intended to interfere, or he didn't. That's your call, but it MUST be one or the other. It sounds like you were pretty sure he didn't mean to put the bat there, so no interference.

ummmmmmm . . . . . . OK
 

OK, I'm convinced. I was probably trying to read too much into a bat being discarded and ending up where it did by the act of a silly spin or roll.

Thanks to the very skilled arguments of others and the very detailed explanation of the poster, I now concur with your opinion of no interference. As it was put earlier . . . .

. . . . . . . . it is " nuttin' honey ".

Thanks guys for responding to my question. As I said in my initial post, I thought after reviewing the play in my mind after the game that I probably blew the call.

I did sell the call though, and no one argued it. I'll just chalk it up to experience and try not to make the same mistake again where it could cost me during an evaluation, or possibly change the outcome of a game.


Tim.

AH HA!!! So you're Curious!!! Sorry just a little joke. HAR DE HAR HAR!!

NF you slay me!!!
 

NF,

I get it, even if nobody else does!!!<(:>)

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Aug 11th, 2005 at 04:26 AM]

Nah,
 

The "curious" reference is not that abstract.

Some of us read other sites.

There is no way that he is teh ;) real curious.