whats the rulebook say

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It has no bearing on the play at hand.

hey, that's never stopped him before!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman

This is the post that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friend,
Someone just started it not knowing what it 'd cause,
Now SA continues it forever, just because

This is the post that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friend,
Someone just started it not knowing what it'd cause,
Now SA continues it forever, just because ...............................

Doug,

You really have done Sherry Lewis proud! I am sure she would have loved to have Lamb Chop sing it!

Mmmmm, lamb chops....now I'm hungry!!!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

Didn't I cite this to you earlier in this thread? Talk about not reading the whole thread. This cite is closer to what actually happened but still doesn't apply. Did you fall down and hit your head? Maybe it's the psychotropic drugs your therapist is prescribing for you. You really shouldn't abuse those you know.

I never never discussed backswing in the first seven pages. Let me know when the word backswing first appeared by posting the thread number 124. This thread was never about backswing. I also immediately posted, "I have been wrong all along about backswing" in thread #125. Keep twisting it for all you have afterwards. You brought it UP and NOW the 3 pretenders twist it as if I am the ONE defending IT. What a great show. LOL

To my knowledge, you have not cited an original rule, except the shortsighted mistake you made repeatedly earlier in this thread. I will gladly RE-post your mistake below.
----
"6.05 A batter is out when: (h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory....etc, etc. This doesn't have anything to do with the original sitch. Wrong rule cite."
----
Please post the thread number where you cited any other rule. You also cited a quote from the LL UIC (AK). Let me clarify,
----
"There is no rule that allows an umpire to call a batter out for throwing the bat, under any circumstances (even if intentional)."
----
Well, are you going to pretend the following rule doesn't exist in OBR, 6.00 - The Batter?
----
"If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not. "
----
Better get AK on the phone and let him know about the rule! It a shame when th LL UIC doesn't realize whatever the hell he's talking about. I already know what you have to say for AK. I made this up with a wrong rule cite. The catcher isn't part of the ensuing play at the plate while the baserunner strolls to 3B. YADA YADA YADA.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Doug,
You really have done Sherry Lewis proud! I am sure she would have loved to have Lamb Chop sing it!
Mmmmm, lamb chops....now I'm hungry!!!

----------
SAFETY first? "F4 and F6 pretending to turn a double play when it's really a fly ball to the outfield in order to fake out the runner is a perfectly acceptable deception, and forces the runner to keep his head in the game. Now, if they do fake a tag, and induce the runner to slide, then we have a problem. Now they have indeed obstructed in FED, LL, and other modified OBR rule sets. In strict OBR it's just part of the game, but most youth ball is safety oriented."

Not LL. I suppose if I had my choice to allow a fake tag on a runner who must slide safely into the bag or YADA YADA YADA {you already know what I was going to SAy}. Reality bites.

[SAump]

Why is the catcher the only player to ever get hit by an intentionally pitched bat?

Is it because he is well-protected by all his equipment or is it because he is made vulnerable by his location behind the batter and YOUR current LL rules?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

----------
SAFETY first? "F4 and F6 pretending to turn a double play when it's really a fly ball to the outfield in order to fake out the runner is a perfectly acceptable deception, and forces the runner to keep his head in the game. Now, if they do fake a tag, and induce the runner to slide, then we have a problem. Now they have indeed obstructed in FED, LL, and other modified OBR rule sets. In strict OBR it's just part of the game, but most youth ball is safety oriented."

Not LL. I suppose if I had my choice to allow a fake tag on a runner who must slide safely into the bag or YADA YADA YADA {you already know what I was going to SAy}. Reality bites.

Yo, SA, listen up:

LL Rule Book:

Rule 2.00 OBSTRUCTION:

"Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction."

Now just what did you mean by "Not LL?"

[SanDiegoSteve]

Oh, I get it now, you meant that Little League is not safety oriented. That is not true, either.

In Little League, if a batter unintentionally (that means on accident) throws his bat carelessly, a warning is given to him, and his teammates, that the very next time it happens, the offender will be ejected from the game.

If a player intentionally (that means on purpose) throws a bat carelessly or maliciously, he is immediately ejected without any warning whatsoever.

In our original situation, it was an accidental (unintentional, remember?) throwing of the bat. After the play was completely over, the umpire should have called "Time," warned the BR who hit the triple for throwing the bat carelessly, and then warned his team that the next such occurrence would result in an ejection. No out can be called, because by rule (all codes), is not interference unless done intentionally and it actually interferes with the fielder's play, which in the original play, neither of which occurred.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh, I get it now, you meant that Little League is not safety oriented. That is not true, either.

In Little League, if a batter unintentionally (that means on accident) throws his bat carelessly, a warning is given to him, and his teammates, that the very next time it happens, the offender will be ejected from the game.

If a player intentionally (that means on purpose) throws a bat carelessly or maliciously, he is immediately ejected without any warning whatsoever.

In our original situation, it was an accidental (unintentional, remember?) throwing of the bat. After the play was completely over, the umpire should have called "Time," warned the BR who hit the triple for throwing the bat carelessly, and then warned his team that the next such occurrence would result in an ejection. No out can be called, because by rule (all codes), is not interference unless done intentionally and it actually interferes with the fielder's play, which in the original play, neither of which occurred.

------------------------
I agree with your interp 100%. This whole issue boils down to one BIG disagreement between option A and B. The CLUE is that the UMPIRES on the scene, in their judgment, determined that it was INDEED intentional or malicious. They called the batter OUT for interference and ejected the young man without warning.

We can only determine that much from the original sitch, nothing else. It was the RAT who stated it was an accedent. We've all done LL games where a little one is HBP and is "coached" into crying by the SHOCK or PAIN. Then some opposing RAT yells that the little guy has to "make an attempt" to get out of the way. Sometimes, I just want to hit the GUY with a RISING fastball for taking advantage of a little tyke. Sometimes I want to yell back, "I wish it was your KID!"

Of all people, you happen to know my MO very well, and SAFETY is UP there HIGH on my LIST. Many leagues and tournaments have adopted modified rules of play {as BOB stated} and many include mandatory interference calls for carelessly thrown bats which strike a catcher. In the BIGS, the batters actions have consequences and NO ONE does it or defends it. I was taken back, but not surprised, by those who defend it so vigorously over the internet.

Just something for the TALLER ONES to think about.

[SAump]

In my judgement, you have the best little graphic guys on this forum. They kill me, especially around Cinco de MAYO.

I would love BC to post the WAAMbulence again for my little friend, NFump.

But that wasn't part of the original sitch either. I know, "Wrong Site."

[SanDiegoSteve]

SA, it has to be intentional and interfere with the play. The batter hit a triple, so his thowing the bat had no bearing on the play. Had he thown the bat intentionally at the catcher as he was fielding a bunt, for example, and interfered with his attempt to field a batted ball, it would be interference, and the BR would be called out. But not on a ball hit to the outfield, unless the BR somehow intentionally threw the bat 170 feet or so, and hit the outfielder as he was trying to field the ball.

Do you see the difference? Even if the umpire determined that it was intentional, it would not be called interference, only malicious contact, and would be ejected after the play. A pinch runner would take his place at 3rd base. No out would result. Comprende senor?

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

I never never discussed backswing in the first seven pages. Let me know when the word backswing first appeared by posting the thread number 124. This thread was never about backswing. I also immediately posted, "I have been wrong all along about backswing" in thread #125. Keep twisting it for all you have afterwards. You brought it UP and NOW the 3 pretenders twist it as if I am the ONE defending IT. What a great show. LOL

You didn't? Hmmmm...post #4 by gulf breeze when he clarified his original post. Then YOU in post #5 asked "A) While hitting the catcher on the back swing, the batter was still holding onto the bat in the back of the batter's box.
or
B) While releasing the bat after the swing, the bat flew backward and hit the catcher after being tossed by the batter as the batter began to run to first base."

To my knowledge, you have not cited an original rule, except the shortsighted mistake you made repeatedly earlier in this thread. I will gladly RE-post your mistake below.
----
"6.05 A batter is out when: (h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory....etc, etc. This doesn't have anything to do with the original sitch. Wrong rule cite."

It is the wrong rule cite. The bat (whole or not) was not thrown into fair territory nor did it interfere with a player making a play. This by your own admission.
----
Please post the thread number where you cited any other rule. You also cited a quote from the LL UIC (AK). Let me clarify,
----
"There is no rule that allows an umpire to call a batter out for throwing the bat, under any circumstances (even if intentional)."

Yep and by your own admission there isn't any such rule. Remember? You said to use 9.01c.
----
Well, are you going to pretend the following rule doesn't exist in OBR, 6.00 - The Batter?

???
----
"If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not. "

Already went over this. WRONG RULE CITE!!!!
----
Better get AK on the phone and let him know about the rule! It a shame when th LL UIC doesn't realize whatever the hell he's talking about. I already know what you have to say for AK. I made this up with a wrong rule cite. The catcher isn't part of the ensuing play at the plate while the baserunner strolls to 3B. YADA YADA YADA.

I knew you'd see the light. Now YOU'RE finally GETTING it.

[NFump]

SAump: "In my judgement, you have the best little graphic guys on this forum. They kill me, especially around Cinco de MAYO.

I would love BC to post the WAAMbulence again for my little friend, NFump.
But that wasn't part of the original sitch either. I know, "Wrong Site.""

And you're my tiny friend SAump.

[SAump]

Batter leads off with a solid 1B to OF and throws the bat right into the catcher. "Time. Coach that is a warning on your batter for carelessly throwing a bat in the direction of the catcher." It was obvious that the catcher took a good shot.

The kid comes up to the plate at the end of the ballgame, gets another hit and throws the bat into the ground rolling up to the catcher's feet. I'm thinking, "Thank God that this catcher was standing between me and that KID." I call the coach over and tell him that KID is dangerous and needs instruction on how to properly release the bat after making contact. Everybody there knows what I was telling that coach.

The kid does the same thing a month later and is immediately ejected and called out for INTERFERENCE by an older VET. The coach didn't like the call one bit but kept control of himself during the heated discussion. It was obvious to me that the reputation that KID carried around the league during the month was a primary reason for that call. I wasn't surprised that the well-mannered coach I had talked to a month earlier was now arguing with the UMP after the game over rule interpretations.

"I'd talk to that player’s manager about it, so the player can be instructed. If it keeps happening, the manager should take the player out of the lineup." Yeah right. As long as that KID keeps hitting the ball, that coach will never ever think of removing him from the line-UP.

Some things will never change.

[NFump]

Well, here it is.......WORD.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

Batter leads off with a solid 1B to OF and throws the bat right into the catcher. "Time. Coach that is a warning on your batter for carelessly throwing a bat in the direction of the catcher." It was obvious that the catcher took a good shot.

The kid comes up to the plate at the end of the ballgame, gets another hit and throws the bat into the ground rolling up to the catcher's feet. I'm thinking, "Thank God that this catcher was standing between me and that KID." I call the coach over and tell him that KID is dangerous and needs instruction on how to properly release the bat after making contact. Everybody there knows what I was telling that coach.

The kid does the same thing a month later and is immediately ejected and called out for INTERFERENCE by an older VET. The coach didn't like the call one bit but kept control of himself during the heated discussion. It was obvious to me that the reputation that KID carried around the league during the month was a primary reason for that call. I wasn't surprised that the well-mannered coach I had talked to a month earlier was now arguing with the UMP after the game over rule interpretations.

"I'd talk to that player’s manager about it, so the player can be instructed. If it keeps happening, the manager should take the player out of the lineup." Yeah right. As long as that KID keeps hitting the ball, that coach will never ever think of removing him from the line-UP.

Some things will never change.

So, now you admitt that in the past you've issued a warning on the first offense for a carelessly thrown bat. Then when he did it again you failed to follow through on your threat and issued a second warning. Now, you're showing contrition because he didn't learn his lesson the first time? How could he when you failed to properly address the situation.


Tim.