whats the rulebook say

[BigUmp56]

SA:

Your insult aside let me re-enlighten you. If an umpire felt this was a flagrant unsportsmanlike act, then of course he could issue an ejection for the first offense. However, even if he did eject the offender he cannot, by rule, in the leagues I mentioned call anyone out. He would be making up rules to fit his personal beliefs. Again, LL, BR, and even FED rules address this. If you'll read the intitial post he says it was an "accedent."



Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

By rule, "ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: b. When a runner makes malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline."

I guess if this was a FED game and in your judgment a carelessly discared bat constituted MC you would be within your rights to call interference. The rest of us would use the proper rule and the prescribed penalty.


FED 3-3

1 - A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

b. carelessly throw a bat,

PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.

Originally Posted by SAump

I was in a heated discussion about interference with DG and WINDY when the catcher threw the ball on a stolen base attempt and it deflected off the bat thrown by the batter after ball four. 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.

Sorry, your interpretation doesn't jive with the rules. First off if the catcher wasn't attempting to retire anyone there would be nothing to interfere with. Second, if the catcher were trying to play on a runner, intent is required to call interference on a thrown ball. A carelessly discarded bat does not constitute intent.



Tim.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE=SAump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

By rule, "ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: b. When a runner makes malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline."

I was in a heated discussion about interference with DG and WINDY when the catcher threw the ball on a stolen base attempt and it deflected off the bat thrown by the batter after ball four. 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.

You are right. It is just your opinion. I would suggest consulting you local friendly FED clinician, however, before attempting to turn your opinion into rule.

Hopefully, he will direct you to 3-3-1: "A coach, players, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not (c) carelessly throw a bat." Penalty: "At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected."

[SAump]

Right back at ya -> "What I see is a carelessly discarded bat and an umpire with a limited understanding of the rules of youth baseball."

I agree with your rule interepretations for minor infractions of carelessly throwing a bat. A batter tossed a bat backwards and glanced off the catcher's or UMPIRE'S protective equipment (ala the Delmond Young incident). Was anyone really hurt? A simple bench warning and ejection on the next occurence may suffice.

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. The runner's are returned to bases at TOP unless it is the third OUT.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I guess if this was a FED game and in your judgment a carelessly discared bat constituted MC you would be within your rights to call interference. The rest of us would use the proper rule and the prescribed penalty.


FED 3-3

1 - A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

b. carelessly throw a bat,

PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.




Sorry, your interpretation doesn't jive with the rules. First off if the catcher wasn't attempting to retire anyone there would be nothing to interfere with. Second, if the catcher were trying to play on a runner, intent is required to call interference on a thrown ball. A carelessly discarded bat does not constitute intent.



Tim.

-----------------

The ruling you mention applies to any person who carelessly throws the bat back toward his own dugout or who may carelessly throw a bat back towards the opponents dugout. The rule is in place to protect those who are not paying attention from be struck and seriously injured. Read "A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:"
YOU will notice the word batter and runner are missing.

[BigUmp56]

Your logic is flawed. You're trying to equate why a bat was thrown to what happened after the bat was thrown. There is a distinction between the two.

Just as you cannot say that you judged a thrown bat to be a flagrant unsportsmanlike action that warranted no penalty if it didn't cause serious injury, you cannot say that a bat judged as being thrown carelessly warrants a more severe penalty than what the rules allow if it did cause serious injury.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

-----------------

The ruling you mention applies to any person who carelessly throws the bat back toward his own dugout or who may carelessly throw a bat back towards the opponents dugout. The rule is in place to protect those who are not paying attention from be struck and seriously injured.

Now that's certainly making things up as you go along.


3.3.1 SITUATION E: After hitting a line drive toward F5, B1 releases the bat, which strikes F2 or the umpire. The act was judged by the umpire to be (a) intentional or (b) unintentional.

Ruling: In (a) and (b), this is a delayed dead-ball situation. In (a), the offender will be ejected from the game. If his fair hit ball is a base hit, he will be replaced with a substitute runner.

In (b), the umpire will warn the coach of that player's team that the next player on that team to violate the rule shall be ejected from the game.



Tim.

[SAump]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5622514

Check out the postgame video.

-------------
No, he plays for the WHITE SOX.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Your logic is flawed. You're trying to equate why a bat was thrown to what happened after the bat was thrown. There is a distinction between the two.

Just as you cannot say that you judged a thrown bat to be a flagrant unsportsmanlike action that warranted no penalty if it didn't cause serious injury, you cannot say that a bat judged as being thrown carelessly warrants a more severe penalty than what the rules allow if it did cause serious injury.

Tim.

Same situation, less than two outs, batter hits a grounder to third who fields it cleanly and comes up to throw home to prevent the run from scoring. The catcher is on the ground holding his left elbow after a carelessly thrown bat. The 3B throws the ball to 1B to retire the batter. Does the run score?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

Same situation, less than two outs, batter hits a grounder to third who fields it cleanly and comes up to throw home to prevent the run from scoring. The catcher is on the ground holding his left elbow after a carelessly thrown bat. The 3B throws the ball to 1B to retire the batter. Does the run score?

Yes, why wouldn't it? This I have to hear.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Using your logic this should have been a three base award. After all it must have really hurt more than being knicked in the thigh.







Tim.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Yes, why wouldn't it? This I have to hear.


Tim.

You would allow the offense to take advantage of a mistake caused by the offense. Your logic is flawed if you allow the offense to exchange a run for an out in this manner. Now don't start an argument with me about the lack of intent.

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SAump

-----------------

The ruling you mention applies to any person who carelessly throws the bat back toward his own dugout or who may carelessly throw a bat back towards the opponents dugout. The rule is in place to protect those who are not paying attention from be struck and seriously injured. Read "A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:"
YOU will notice the word batter and runner are missing.

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).

[BigUmp56]

Well, yes I would allow the run to score. Then again I'm one of those crazy umpires who feels bound to enforce the rules as they're written.



Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

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).

There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.


Tim.



Tim.