whats the rulebook say

[BigUmp56]

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.

[NFump]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Bruce, you are so right, but sometimes that's just not enough for some folks.

[NFump]

That's a good smiley.

[RPatrino]

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

Bob P.

[NFump]

Googled him myself.

[NFump]

Here comes another one from SA!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

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

Bob P.

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

[SAump]

"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!

[NFump]

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

[NFump]

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

[NFump]

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

[RPatrino]

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.

[NFump]

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!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

SA,

Won't the real SA please shut up, please shut up, please shut up!

As youze kin planely cee frum the orijunal siteation hear, the sorry player hits a triple inaverently hittig the catcher on the back swing. Their wuz no intent on the part of the batter, but the ruleing wuz that the batter is dqed and can not play the rest of the game and the rest of the tourny.

Follow closely now SA.....The point hear iz that their wuz no warnin' given on an accedent throwin' of the bat, and the thrown bat did not interfere with anything. The batter hit a triple, so the catcher wuz not making a play. You are rong. Rong is rong. Rong, rong, rong. The blue that every body hates around the wurld wuz rong to! He shudent have taked away the 2 runs neither. It shud have rezulted in a warnin' only.

Thank youze fur you're support.

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!