Fair ball hit with hands

[SanDiegoSteve]

No, it was already mentioned. Original material only.

[briancurtin]

thank harold reynolds for this thread.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

thank harold reynolds for this thread.

And, Tim McCarver, Joe Morgan, Jeff Brantley, Steve Stone, Burnt Fussberger...........



Tim.

[3appleshigh]

who don't know the answer to a question jump on here give the wrong answer then are upset when people tell them they are stunned. They then hide behind, well it is an educational forum. You're right it is so pay attention and learn something before jumping on here and being wrong. By being wrong you convinced anyone else who didn't know what the answer was (for this question, that would be, the rat and the primordial ooze in the corner) that your answer was right. Pay attention and learn, don't guess and screw it up for the rest.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a FOOL... I truly hope i don't need to finish this.

[ump14]

heres what I tell the coaches when I am umpiring and they tell me the hands are part of the bat.Coach if you can go to the sporting goods store and buy a bat with a pair of hands on it I wil give it to you.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by DadO3

I've searched the forum and I can't find a specific reference to this situation.

With runners on 2nd and 3rd.
My son, in an 11-13 year old league, swung at a pitch and the ball went between the 2nd and 1st baseman. He reached 1st base.

The runners on second and third scored.

Here's the gotch ya.
The ball actually hit his hand when he swung and not the bat, although he was holding the bat.
The call was made as a hit and the runners were not forced to return to their base since "the hands are part of the bat".

The other coach argued that this was a "hit by pitch" and therefore should have been a dead ball.

What should the proper decision be?

Thank you.

Proving that the hands are part of the bat test procedure:

Step 1: Grab a 'standard' (unmodified) bat in both hands and stand fully upright (standing position).

Step 2: Hold the bat in both hands out at arms length

Step 3: Release the bat and allow it to fall unimpeded to the ground.

WARNING!!! Do not touch the bat after releasing it.

Step 4: Observe the bat lying on the ground and record the number of hands that are attached to the bat.

Acceptance Criteria: If the bat, while lying untouched on the ground, is observed to have one or more hands attached, then you have proven that the hands are part of the bat.

If no hands remain attached to the bat then quickly change the title of this test procedure to "Proving that the hands are NOT part of the bat"

[Dave Reed]

"The hands are part of the bat" is a long-lasting myth, and I believe that part of the reason it endures is these bogus "explanations" of why it isn't true. Most people do not learn well while being patronized; they are even less accepting when the object lesson is logically flawed.

Here's an example of the inconsistency: a rough analogy to the trip to a hardware store is a trip to a hospital delivery room. Babies come into this world wearing nothing, yet the person of a player is defined as his body, clothing, or equipment, even though it makes little sense outside of baseball. Hence if a pitched ball strikes a batter only in the uniform, and not his body, he is deemed to be hit by the pitch. Baseball bats aren't manufactured with hands attached, and babies don't come into this world wearing uniforms. Neither fact is important to the rules of baseball.

In reality, the reason that the hands aren't part of the bat is the rules of baseball say they aren't. Please direct confused spectators and game participants to rule 6.08(b) and rule 2 definition of a strike. It's a much more convincing and palatable explanation.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I like the funny answers better.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

"The hands are part of the bat" is a long-lasting myth, and I believe that part of the reason it endures is these bogus "explanations" of why it isn't true. Most people do not learn well while being patronized; they are even less accepting when the object lesson is logically flawed.

Here's an example of the inconsistency: a rough analogy to the trip to a hardware store is a trip to a hospital delivery room. Babies come into this world wearing nothing, yet the person of a player is defined as his body, clothing, or equipment, even though it makes little sense outside of baseball. Hence if a pitched ball strikes a batter only in the uniform, and not his body, he is deemed to be hit by the pitch. Baseball bats aren't manufactured with hands attached, and babies don't come into this world wearing uniforms. Neither fact is important to the rules of baseball.

In reality, the reason that the hands aren't part of the bat is the rules of baseball say they aren't. Please direct confused spectators and game participants to rule 6.08(b) and rule 2 definition of a strike. It's a much more convincing and palatable explanation.

I was merely offering scientific proof that hands are not part of the bat. I personally have never been satisfied with “that’s the way it is because I say it is.”

I can also provide you with scientific proof that player’s clothes become part of the body when they are worn by the player. Would you like to see it?

Remember. without data we are all just men with opinions.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by kraine27

First of all I would like to offer my sincere apologies for misspeaking earlier. Apparently, it is not permitted in this forum to make a mistake as pointed out by mcrower earlier. I hope I don't ever have to work with a guy like him that doesn't allow anyone to make a mistake, even if it is on an elementary situation. Apparently everyone didn't know the answer or the question would not have been raised in the first place.

Anyhow, Rule reference for some real help.

NFHS Case book for 2006 Season. PG53 7.3.4 situation B: B1 is at bat with a three-ball, two-strike count. He swings at the next pitch and the ball hits his right fist and, without contacting the bat, goes into foul territory. F2 retrieves the ball and throws the F3 who is covering first base and tags B1 with the ball. RULING: As soon as the ball hit the batter it became dead. B1 is declared out. (Because it was strike three) To have the play ruled a fould ball, the ball would have to have hit the bat of B1 before it touched his hand.

Secondly, I thought this was supposed to have been an educational forum and not a place for people to run their mouths. Again, my mistake. Next time I'll know better and allow the people that are too good to learn answer the questions.

Again, I'm sorry for any confussion I may have caused.

I try to get better by learning something everyday. Guess I achieved that today.

I read the sarcasm aimed at me... no problem. But I will elaborate.

You ARE allowed to come on here and make a mistake. We all do. Some live by it (PWL, et al). But you can't make THIS mistake. THIS mistake tells the world that you are NOT an umpire. This is the most basic of all umpiring misnomers/myths that NO real umpire would ever believe, even for a second. If you ARE a real umpire, and have been to even one clinic - then shame on anyone who ever taught you anything, including your clinicians. If you have actually read the book, then do it again.

Feel free to come on here and make your opinions known, by all means. BUT - please have some basis for your opinions on the various situations. Rule with the rulebook, and while you might make mistakes, you will learn. Don't rule from whatever you thought you learned from your days as a player - you might say things like, "The hands are part of the bat..."

And welcome to the site. Please don't let me chase you off just yet.

[greymule]

For those confused about this, one general rule to remember is that any pitch that hits the batter is dead. It can be HBP, strike (if the batter offered at it or interfered with its becoming a strike, or if it is in the strike zone), or ball (if the batter intentionally let himself be hit). But it's always a dead ball.

There's some question about what to call if the batter runs up toward the pitcher, does not offer, and is hit while out of the box, and I admit I don't yet know the ruling, but whatever it is, the ball is still dead.

So if a pitch hits a batter, you can call "dead ball" every time and then decide how to rule.

A tougher call might arise if the batter swings at a pitch in on the hands and you hear the sound of ball hitting metal, the ball goes over F6 for a hit, and the batter, now standing on 1B, needs medical attention to his hand.

Incidentally, did "the hands are part of the bat" perhaps stem from basketball? Is there something in basketball about the hand being part of the ball?

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by DadO3

I've searched the forum and I can't find a specific reference to this situation.

With runners on 2nd and 3rd.
My son, in an 11-13 year old league, swung at a pitch and the ball went between the 2nd and 1st baseman. He reached 1st base.

The runners on second and third scored.

Here's the gotch ya.
The ball actually hit his hand when he swung and not the bat, although he was holding the bat.
The call was made as a hit and the runners were not forced to return to their base since "the hands are part of the bat".

The other coach argued that this was a "hit by pitch" and therefore should have been a dead ball.

What should the proper decision be?

Thank you.

The hands are not part of the bat! In the discribed situation I have a dead ball, a strike on the batter (if strike three, batter is out) and any runners on base return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch.

For those of you who think the hands are part of the bat, I challenge you to go to any sporting goods store and buy a bat where the hands are included.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by greymule

Incidentally, did "the hands are part of the bat" perhaps stem from basketball? Is there something in basketball about the hand being part of the ball?

Nope, the hand is not part of the ball in basketball. There is a statement in the basketball rule book saying that it's legal for a defender to accidentally hit a player's hand while that hand is in contact with the ball. Hitting a player's hand deliberately while it's on the ball is still supposed to be a foul. It's a judgement call, and if there's any doubt, you usually rule that it's accidental (unless you can read minds, which I sureashell can't).

It's kind of a misunderstood rule in basketball too iow. You can't buy a basketball with a hand attached either.

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by DadO3

I've searched the forum and I can't find a specific reference to this situation.

With runners on 2nd and 3rd.
My son, in an 11-13 year old league, swung at a pitch and the ball went between the 2nd and 1st baseman. He reached 1st base.

The runners on second and third scored.

Here's the gotch ya.
The ball actually hit his hand when he swung and not the bat, although he was holding the bat.
The call was made as a hit and the runners were not forced to return to their base since "the hands are part of the bat".

The other coach argued that this was a "hit by pitch" and therefore should have been a dead ball.

What should the proper decision be?

Thank you.

You have not yet received the proper answer. The REAL answer is Umpire Judgement.

From your thread:

The ball actually hit his hand when he swung and not the bat, although he was holding the bat.

The question? What did Blue see? If blue didn't see the ball hit the batter, then regardless of what you think, the play stands.

If the coach comes out to question Blue and says "Hey Blue didn't the ball hit the player first" and Blue responds with yes it did and falls victim to the myth "hands are part of the bat", then the coach can protest the ruling,

However, if Blue says "Skip in my judgement I didn't see the ball hit the player it hit his bat, then all bets off and Blue's ruling stands.

Side Note: Your scenario is why the BU needs to be alert. Sometimes the PU is screened on the play or has a bad angle, therefore, if the BU is paying attention like he/she is supposed to, then the BU as soon as he ses the ball hit B1 should call TIME and kill the play befroe any ensuing "action" follows.

Pete Booth

[Justme]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You have not yet received the proper answer. The REAL answer is Umpire Judgement.

From your thread:

The ball actually hit his hand when he swung and not the bat, although he was holding the bat.

The question? What did Blue see? If blue didn't see the ball hit the batter, then regardless of what you think, the play stands.

If the coach comes out to question Blue and says "Hey Blue didn't the ball hit the player first" and Blue responds with yes it did and falls victim to the myth "hands are part of the bat", then the coach can protest the ruling,

However, if Blue says "Skip in my judgement I didn't see the ball hit the player it hit his bat, then all bets off and Blue's ruling stands.

Side Note: Your scenario is why the BU needs to be alert. Sometimes the PU is screened on the play or has a bad angle, therefore, if the BU is paying attention like he/she is supposed to, then the BU as soon as he ses the ball hit B1 should call TIME and kill the play befroe any ensuing "action" follows.

Pete Booth

Actually if you read the original post it sounds as if the PU ruled it a hit even though the ball hit the batter's hands because he thought that the hands are part of the bat. In this case it wasn't the umpire's judgment that was in question it was his knowledge (or lack of) and application of the rules. The coach was correct and rules should not have scored.