Fair ball hit with hands

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RPatrino]

The first and best strategy for "myth busting" is to get out that pesky little rule book. If you are a dad or coach, your league should have them available to you. If you are an umpire, if you aren't provided one by your league or association (shame!), then its incumbent on you to go get one yourself.

Trying to umpire without studying the rule book is like trying to be a preacher and not reading and studying the Bible.

Bob P.

[BretMan]

Yes! The hands are part of the bat!

In the sport of cricket...

[TussAgee11]

I think #2 is "Tie goes to runner". Coaches give me that alot, at which point I enter philisophical debate that it is impossible for two independent events to happen at the same exact moment in time. Once I say that, they look puzzled and walk back to where they came from.

If you put a stop watch on them, and carried out those decimals, eventually there would be a difference one way or the other.

Can I be on that show "Myth Busters" now?

[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.