whats the rulebook say

[NFump]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!"

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

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

"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.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by gulf breeze

sorry player hits a triple inavertently hittig the catcher on the back swing..he gets to third base scoring two runs..the catcher after coaching crys but stays in the game..there was no warning for this before in the game..the ruleing was that the batter is dqed and can not play the rest of this game and the rest of the tourny,,also the two runs were taken away..thank you..

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?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

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?

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.

[NFump]

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.

[NFump]

"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!

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

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!

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.

[SAump]

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.

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.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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:

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.

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.

[SAump]

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.

When is he OUT? Are you backtracking now?

[NFump]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

When is he OUT? Are you backtracking now?

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.

[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