Fair ball hit with hands

[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.

[kraine27]

IMO. Play stands. If he didn't swing, then you have a dead ball HBP, If he swings and misses, you have a dead ball strike.

[mcrowder]

Just kill me now.

Kraine, by a book, attend a clinic.

NO - the hands are not part of the bat. This is myth 1-A in the long list of myths that need to be killed. If he swung, and the ball hit his hands, it's a dead ball strike. Doesn't matter where the ball goes.

[orioles35]

If he's in the box with the bat between his legs and gets hit, does that mean the batter's penis is part of the bat? Just wondering...

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by orioles35

If he's in the box with the bat between his legs and gets hit, does that mean the batter's penis is part of the bat? Just wondering...

[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.

[kraine27]

Originally Posted by Tim C

" . . . "the hands are part of the bat"."

It is indeed spring.

So what are you saying here? Hit or no hit?

[CJN]

Originally Posted by kraine27

So what are you saying here? Hit or no hit?

He's saying no hit. This is extremely elementary situation made more complex be the widespread myth that hands are part of the bat.

As mcrowder said, the ball is dead and the result of the pitch is a strike because the batter swung at the pitch.

[phillips.alex]

He is saying the batter is charged with a strike and still at bat.


If a ball hits any part of the body (including hair and hands) then the ball is dead. If the batter swings or is hit in the strike zone, it is a strike. If the batter does not attempt to move, and the ball is outside of the strike zone then it is a ball. If the batter attempts to move and does not swing then it is a hit-by-pitch and the batter is awarded first, and all forced runners advance.

I think that is all of the possible situations for a hit batter.

[ajjl22]

Originally Posted by kraine27

....... If he swings and misses, you have a dead ball strike.

What!?

If you swung and missed why would the ball be dead?

these guys crack me up

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

This is one of those myths that perpetuate themselves with Dads who never made it beyond Little League.

If you truly believe that the hands are part of the bat, please tell me where you buy those bats. It's been a long time since I purchased said equipment, but I don't recall getting hands as part of the deal. I hope I still have the receipt.

[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.