The dolt is the one who doesn't know that the defense obstructs and the offense interferes. B...bb...bbbut....it...sss..sssays ob..ob...obstructs in the definition....whaaaaa....whaaaaaaa. He's stalking me....whaaaaaaa!

Go back to Allexperts.com and get some more rulings. Sheesh!

You just can't resist replying can you SA?

Whatever Floats
 

I suppose your spin on things makes you happy.

It really doesn't bother me. You'll see.

I enjoy reading the kiddish behavior.

LOL

Then just read it and quit posting it.

Thanks and have a good day!

Yes, Bruce, you need to quit putting a spin on this. With all those darn facts in the way, how will we ever get to reach an accord with SAump.


Tim.

Somebody's gonna reach a cord around his neck and pull it tight if'n he keeps making up rules in his games.

Bruce, you are so right, but sometimes that's just not enough for some folks.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_7_23.gif

That's a good smiley.

Am I the only one here that has never heard of Mike Fortunado?

Bob P.

Googled him myself.

Here comes another one from SA!

Bob,

You certainly are not.

Personally, I was just wondering if his "coaching strategies to win games" exhibited the same command of the game that his rules knowledge does.;)

JM

Food for Thought
 

"There is no rule that allows an umpire to call a batter out for throwing the bat, under any circumstances (even if intentional)."

There is a rule, and I posted it here (again). That was the crux of my argument or conundrum. I did not make up the rule. I know it exists.

"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."

Perhaps a RE-clarification is necesssary. Why would Andy insist that it doesn't exist? Mike was right.

Sorry you had to endure that kind of call. You'd certainly think that Little League would have their best umpires at Williamsport!

I guess SA went to bed. It's alright though he'll attempt to get the last word tomorrow(or would that be today?).

One question SA. In the original sitch, where was the bat thrown? WRONG RULE CITE!

Okay two questions. Which fielder was attempting to make a play on the batted ball?

Well, I still don't know who Mike Fortunado is. And I looked at that "expert" website and saw a very interesting answer.

Apparently a coach can ask for an appeal on a check swing that IS CALLED a strike. So we are to ask, "did he hold up?"

SAUmp has found a real fountain of mis-information there!!

Bob P.

YGTBSM! Well SA? Is that true? Can the offense appeal a strike call?
That's what your "expert" said, so it must be true. WOW!

I wuz jest funnin' around with this post, so nobody git bent outta shape hear!

This was post #76 in this thread (now we are on 120!!!), where the original situation was pointed out to SA, and he was informed that he was wrong. He is still wrong. Rong, rong, rong!

OOPS! My bad. If SA perceived it to be true then, to him, it is.

Or you could do this old stand-by:

PU: "Hey Joe, they want to know, did he go?"

BU: "Yeah Kent, he shore nuff went."

PU: "I told ya so!"

:D

I can't tell
 

"a batter hit the catcher during the progress of the game and scored a triple"

Remember this is 8-10 year old kid and a scored triple could mean just about anything. Some catchers are practically over the plate. Somewhere near HOME plate. Good catchers react to cover the plate immediately when runners are in scoring position. There isn't much distance to cover.

You're not suggesting he was in foul territory, or he wasn't attempting to make a play at the plate with two runners on board. Now if that batter hit the triple (???) with the bases empty, I haven't got that intereference call at the plate.

So you're saying the catcher, at the time of the batter swinging the bat, was not behind the plate(which is foul territory)? And oh yeah, the batter hit a triple(it doesn't matter how many were on) there was no play being made at the time of (your) interference. Is it sinking in yet?

i'm wrong about backswing
 

If batter hit catcher on the backswing after a triple, I got nothing.

Have you read the entire thread? It matters because I have no intereference if NO one runs home past an injured catcher to score a run.

SA, do you recognize this statement?

"I left the warning on the table for a MINOR infraction, but a MAJOR accident is reason enough for an immediate expulsion and an OUT. You are definitely putting the game ahead of the safety of those involved. I will not."

You were getting an out here for a MAJOR accident, not for interference. That was first. You realized at this point you were wrong and started grabbing at anything you could to shore yourself up.

"Well if a bat harmlessly flying through the air may cause interference with a catcher attempting to make a play, I believe a bat that decks the catcher who is not attempting to make any play is also grounds for interference. JMOHO."

Now it's interference. And your own words stating the catcher was not attempting to make any play.

"I NO LONGER agree with your interpretation of an accident that results in serious injury. The batter is responsible for his actions which includes safely releasing the bat. I am not ruling on a carelessly thrown bat. I am ruling on a bat that makes serious CONTACT with the catcher or UMPIRE (MALICIOUS). That B/R is OUT immediately and ejected for MC."

Now it's that safety thing again and malicious contact. More flailing around than a drunk who thinks he's falling down.

A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).

Now we've got the batter throwing his bat at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner when he was really just swinging at a pitch. Oh and by the way, you can't get two outs on the same guy. Brilliant!

"THROWING THE BAT RULE
Young players quite often let go of the bat during or after a swing and sometimes hit another player. There is no rule that covers this situation. It is a safety issue and may be handled under the authority of rule 9.01(c) which gives the umpire authority to rule on anything not specifically covered in the rules.I feel the batter interfered with the catcher's ability to field his position. I would call the batter OUT for interference by rule and return the runner to 3B, the last base legally obtained at TOI. If the bases were loaded, I would rule a DP as a result of this interference if I felt one was possible."

Now you're using 9.01c and back to the safety thing and using interference as well as getting a DP. Not to mention, in your own words, that you acknowledge the fact that there is no rule that covers this situation.

"6.7.1 The batter is out and the ball is dead if (a) the batter throws the bat unintentionally in a dangerous manner and it hits the catcher, umpire, any player, or coach in his normal position, goes into a dugout or into the crowd which is outside of the playing field (bat must hit spectator or player); or (b) the batter intentionally throws the bat in a dangerous manner or (c) upon hitting a fair or foul ball, the batter unintentionally throws the bat and it interferes with play in any way. These are not appeal plays. They are interference plays and "in a dangerous manner" is to be adjudged by the umpire."

Another gem found on the internet. Which rule set was this again? I thought it was supposed to be USSSA(which uses OBR, modified).

And there was this beauty of a post:

"Topic: Baseball Instruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert: Mike Fortunato
Date: 5/3/2005
Subject: Thrown bat ruling
Question
Hi, Mike:

I have extensive experience playing and managing in pro ball, but Williamsport Little League umpiring astounds me. In yesterday's game (12-year-old, majors division), with the bases loaded and two out, the batter swings and misses and throws his bat, and is given a warning by the plate umpire. On the next pitch he taps one back to the mound, but again throws his bat, this time taking out the catcher. The pitcher fields the ball and goes home with it, but the catcher has been injured by the bat and stumbles to get to the plate to take the throw. He is late getting there. The umpire calls the runner at home safe, then throws the hitter out for throwing the bat! He does not call an out, allows the run, and has the coach replace the batter with a pinch-runner at first. We protested that, if the batter is out of the game for throwing the bat, he can't be safe at first. Also, that the bat interfered with the catcher and therefore the batter is out. How can this umpire be right? Thanks!

Get the answer below
Sponsored Links
Free Batting Aid
Designed To Develop Short And Quick Swing. Just Complete Survey Now!
Quickswing.Leisure-Offer.Com

Baseball Pitching Guide
Pro Teaches How To Pitch Mechanics Velocity Arm Care
www.ExplosivePitching.com

Answer
Wow! Based on your description, I would have to agree with you. If I were umpiring that game, I definitely would not have allowed the run to score (based on obstruction). And if the batter was tossed from the game, it's ludicrous that he wouldn't be called out! Only thing I can think of is that the ump's judgment was that the bat was not thrown purposefully -- but even still, he had already issued a warning. Based on my understanding of the situation, your protest would seem to be valid. Whether they overturn the call or not is another matter, since this involves umpire judgment to some degree.

Sorry you had to endure that kind of call. You'd certainly think that Little League would have their best umpires at Williamsport!

Best of luck,

Mike Fortunato"

Nuff said bout dat.

"There is a rule, and I posted it here (again). That was the crux of my argument or conundrum. I did not make up the rule. I know it exists."

Yeah, you know it exists yet you say there isn't one(which explains why you can't find it). So you keep going back and forth, back and forth, it's interference, no, it's a safety issue, no wait it's both. Meanwhile myself and everyone else has stated the same thing the whole time. You cannot get an out here. I hope you will see the light at the end of the tunnel someday.

Thanks for playing
Good night.

"If batter hit catcher on the backswing after a triple, I got nothing.

Have you read the entire thread? It matters because I have no intereference if NO one runs home past an injured catcher to score a run."

That's not what you originally said (as I pointed out). Nice try. You should try out for the Olympics, yep, swimming, yep, the backstroke!

It wouldn't matter at all even if there were a runner trying to advance. You still cannot get an out here for contact made on the backswing unless it was an intentional act.

6.06(c)

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.



Tim.

Modified Your Obstruction Lately
 

What was the latest on NOT allowing the catcher to block the plate without the ball?
I guess it going to take some serious bat throwing incidents to move you guys.
Local leagues will adopt the changes after word gets OUT.
Good thing you keep UP with the rule changes.

Your point is?
 

You cite a rule that confirms my observation. Do you have your sites on twisting these words around too. Remember to place the runners back to TOP and NO they can't score a RUN in this manner, either.

What? Now the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball. Serious bat throwing warrants an ejection not an out! Really SA, you're going from the sublime to the ridiculous to the absolutely absurd. Flailing, flailing on the baseball field. Good job! ROFLMAO!!

SAump Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by BigUmp56
It wouldn't matter at all even if there were a runner trying to advance. You still cannot get an out here for contact made on the backswing unless it was an intentional act.

6.06(c)

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

Tim.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

You cite a rule that confirms my observation. Do you have your sites on twisting these words around too. Remember to place the runners back to TOP and NO they can't score a RUN in this manner, either.

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.

Explain
 

When is he OUT? Are you backtracking now?

The only one backtracking is you, SAump! What's next? You gonna say that you would judge this to be an intentional act by the batter? You change your story more than @@%^! Give it up man.

6.06(c) is for when the batter swings AND MISSES and the backswing hits the catcher. That's why it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only ". It has no bearing on the play at hand.

As sung by LambChop .................................
 

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

hey, that's never stopped him before!

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!!!:p

Pin on another medal for logic
 

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.

You Don't SAy
 

----------
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.

Two Sided Coin?
 

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?

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?"

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.

Can I get an Amen
 

------------------------
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.

By the way
 

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

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

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

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?

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

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

And you're my tiny friend SAump.;)

Story time
 

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.

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

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.

I'm not sure that there is an umpire out there that would come to this decision on his own.

Alos, umpires, regarless of their understanding of the rules don't have the ability to suspend someone for a tourney.

This situation was either explained to the tournament committee incorrectly or incompletely, or the committee is taking NOTHING for granted and throwing the book at this kid.

Either way, it's out of the umpire's hands- it's no longer about the call.


Bainer.

Not at All
 

I'm saying I too should have ejected him after the catcher took the brunt of the first carelessly thrown bat. I am saying the second thrown bat was a close call, but not the gut buster that deserved immediate ejection. I'm saying the crowd knew about the kid and the VET UMP didn't hesitate removing him from the ballgame. It was the EXPECTED CALL.;)

EXPECTED CALL is the scariest term I have ever heard in my life.


Bainer.

And you would have been well within the rules to do so. I take it then that this sitch happened to you when you were a "rookie"?

Bainer:

There are certain tournaments that prescribe a mandatory removal for the remainder of the event should an ejection occur. I'm not debating the validity of the ejection. What we've been trying to impart to SA is that the only rules set that allows for an out to be called for a carelessly discarded bat is Dizzy Dean youth baseball.


Tim.

Lord knows this thread has made me dizzy enough.... :p

LMan,

I realize this is a very long thread, but post #86 already contained this humor. You need to get your own material.:D

Must I Maker Myself Clear
 

You're saying:
"1 - A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: carelessly throw a BAT."
The penalty is a warning and an ejection.
-------------------
I'm saying you are applying a rule that covers basically everybody on both teams to protect or allow the batter's ACTION to remain "unpunished." What do I mean when I say unpunished? A warning does NOTHING and you agree with the ejection. But you also allow a substitution. So if a coach can replace the batter after a hit with a faster RUNNER, he gains an ADVANTAGE. YOU reward the offense in a situation when the course of a ballgame may be decided. In the final two innings, the batter may never return to the plate. You're a NICE guy.
--------------------
My second point is that if you allow the catcher to receive two crushing blows in one game, he is NOT likely to care whether the batter ever receives proper instruction afterward. You have DONE NOTHING to protect the SAFETY of the individuals INVOLVED in a GAME that should be decided on FAIR PLAY.
--------------------
My third point is that some UMPS are so focused with the RULE SET that it becomes an hindrance to the reality of serious injury taking place on the field. Would you like me to list the changes over the course of the last 5 years that were brought about to INSURE SAFETY. It is the UMPIRE'S obligation to protect the integrity of the game. You, SIR, have failed in this regard and have been called OUT onto the carpet.
--------------------
My final point is I admitted that I would warn and eject and follow the rules up to a certain point. I can not condone serious injury in that analysis when I stated, "had you been more willing to discuss the situation like a REAL man."
Any RAT who approaches dialogue with one objective, whatever is best for his team at that moment in time, is NOT A REAL MAN.
--------------------
Hey SDS and NFump, my favorite thread was locked. It is hard to play the devils advocate in every situation without looking like an ***. But the satisfaction of the political tickling with the BIG DOGS and the unexpected responses is my reward. LOL. I'll keep looking for another opportunity like this.;)

You dont think I could actually stand to read all that, do you?? :p That it was in "Post #86 (!!!)" is indictment enough!

It was never about when to eject, but about the "out" you were trying to get. If it's bad enough, toss the little bugger, no warning (to him anyway).

As for "playing" the devil's advocate, there's a point where it's just to much. But you keep looking for "opportunities" and we'll keep "rewarding" you.:)

Awareness
 

I'm well aware of the PACK MENTALITY.

Too bad, you can't focus on the message.

An OUT is sorely needed in this sitch.

SA,

I am still trying to figure out why you insist on creating an artificial out in the original situation. I explained in detail, as did others, that what the batter did by accidently releasing the bat and striking the catcher on a ball hit to the outfield did not constitute interference, and interference would have been necessary in order to call the batter out.

Grasp that, and you will see that no out can be created, as the rules do not allow it in the given situation.

You can certainly make up scenarios in which you can get an out, but the situation we have been discussing ad nauseum is not one of them.

An out May be needed, but calling one in this situation
is indefensible. There is nothing in the rules to say you can
call the out. I suppose you would use 9:01c, but most
reasonable umpires would not. Of course, most of us don't
make up rules, we use those already in the book.

.

See?:( You just can't let it go. An out is not needed here. That's my opinion. I got your message in your first post, however, it is apparent the one not getting the message is YOU(:confused:).

"Of course, most of us don't make up rules, we use those already in the book."

Umpduck's statement sums up what we've been telling you all along. Stop trying to impose your sense of fairplay into the game.