bat leaves batter's hands

[SanDiegoSteve]

Okay then, since it is legal to throw the bat at the ball in OBR, what would the result be in the same situation under FED rules, for A, B, and C?

[D-Man]

It's just a swing in a. and b. unless it interferes with a fielder making a play. Nowhere in the original sitch does it say the batter threw his bat at the pitch.

Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch? What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does?

Sit. c. is more complicated and depends more on what the catcher's doing and the batter's intentions. On the cover, I like Roder's "interference without a play" idea, but we have the latitude to judge intent on the batter's part to interfere with the catcher's play.

The very nature of this situation will open up a smokin' Port-O-Let. There will be no PC call and nowhere to hide. Someone's coming out no matter what you rule (or don't rule).

In my opinion, the batter has every right to swing at the pitch and lunging at an outside pitch, pitchout or not, and losing control of the bat as a result of the effort, does NOT constitute throwing the bat at a pitch. Throwing at bat at a pitch, as in the BRD interp., implies, to me, something much more overt and irresponsible. The facts of this situation: the batter was legally positioned in the batter's box, in a. the batter hits the ball, and in b. and c. the batter contacts the mitt of a legally positioned catcher, lead me to believe the pitch was hittable.

D

[jicecone]

Well I'm very sorry to see umpires that know what they are going to call, but don't know why.

In sit. B there is no way I'm calling CI for a bat that has been released by the batter and prevents the catcher from making a reasonable catch of the ball, unless it is obvious as hell that the catcher interfered with the swing.

"Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch? What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does? "

I have been asking that same question four times now and haven't got an answer yet.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by jicecone

I am not the one that answered the questions about Catchers Interference. I am just questioning how one arrived at the answer.

So I will ask again, convince me, why it is CI when the bat hits the catchers glove, after coming out of his hands.
Would you rule the same for a batter that intentionally tried to cause CI. And how would you tell the difference in each case????

Where does anything say the bat has to be in the batter's hands at the moment of contact? It doesn't. The lunge/loss or throw are legitimate attempts to hit the ball. The catcher's glove hitting the bat is interference with that attempt because it alters the course of the bat. Why do you think it should be different? Are you sure you're not just grasping for reasons because you don't think it shoud be allowed?


Intentionally trying to get a CI call isn't the issue, it's another discussion. This one is about a legitimate attemot to hit the pitch.

[Rich Ives]

"Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch?"


He can, that's the whole basis.



"What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does?"

Nothing. Why should he be protected?


The batter is entitled to attempt to hit the pitch. The catcher cannot interfere with (obstruct) that attempt.


"I have been asking that same question four times now and haven't got an answer yet."

What you have received is answers you don't like. What you haven't received is the answer you want.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Nov 15th, 2005 at 01:17 PM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

The batter is entitled to attempt to hit the pitch. The catcher cannot interfere with (obstruct) that attempt.

Under ANY circumstances Rich?

Unfortunately I don't think either us have enough rule substatiation to back our opinions up. Maybe you do more then me, but it's not much more.

I know one thing though, if I was coaching the defenseive team , I would have to be tossed.

[D-Man]

I read the situation as a BAD pitchout attempt that the batter thought (correctly) that he could reach. As a result of his effort to get to an outside pitch, the bat is inadvertantly released.

And no, not in all cases of bat release situations would this be legal. An intentional release of the bat to interfere is interference. But in the case as described: an inadvertant release of the bat, while legitamately offering at a pitch, is simply a swing, hit or miss (unless it interferes with a fielder making a play).

It would still seem to me that, as long as the bat was not released in a rearward fashion, the catcher's mitt would be NOT where it is supposed to be.

What Coney describes as the batter preventing the catcher from receiving the pitch, implies the bat is released towards the catcher and in that case I would hope I would call batter interference.

I guess it comes down to this, is the batter throwing his bat or is he trying to hit the ball? In my judgment, that difference is key in what I'm calling...and the reason why.

DM

[jicecone]

Originally posted by D-Man
I read the situation as a BAD pitchout attempt that the batter thought (correctly) that he could reach. As a result of his effort to get to an outside pitch, the bat is inadvertantly released.

And no, not in all cases of bat release situations would this be legal. An intentional release of the bat to interfere is interference. But in the case as described: an inadvertant release of the bat, while legitamately offering at a pitch, is simply a swing, hit or miss (unless it interferes with a fielder making a play).

It would still seem to me that, as long as the bat was not released in a rearward fashion, the catcher's mitt would be NOT where it is supposed to be.

What Coney describes as the batter preventing the catcher from receiving the pitch, implies the bat is released towards the catcher and in that case I would hope I would call batter interference.

I guess it comes down to this, is the batter throwing his bat or is he trying to hit the ball? In my judgment, that difference is key in what I'm calling...and the reason why.

DM

Well put, and it was the point I tryng to make.

Thanks