whats the rulebook say

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
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.
Does this help? His was a sarcastic example, yours was just......wrong.

--------------------------
Next, the intentionally thrown bat rule you quoted has no similarity to the original sitch, as there isn't an intentionally thrown anything in it.

No, I twisted nothing. I quoted you. Hopefully, you can see that.

-------------
No, it doesn't help. What was wrong with my example? Are you suggesting that a rule allows ONE to intentionally discard a bat in a careless manner and not be ejected. I definitely see a SIMILARITY. It may not be congruent to your thinking, but there is definitely a SIMILARITY, like it or not.

You can't be sure there isn't anything twisted about your statement. Something aout the similarity in the two rules strikes a familiar chord. I see nothing about a HOME RUN ball. Perhaps your just holding me UP to a HIGHER standard. Would you like me to put that in BOLD letters?

That is the beauty of it, rule 3-3-1 and 6.05.h/7-3-6 appear to conflict. Different penalties exist for ONE judgement call. According to the rule book, it is left up to the UMPIRE to enforce. I think the issue must be clarified to avoid favoritism among the UMP/RATS who actually know the rules and the Protest Committee members. It would be possible for the rule committee to clarify a batter's action in chapter 6 (OBR) or chapter 7 (fed). It looks rather, hmmm, stuck in chapter 3. I support the bouys who made the call at that ballpark and I have more faith in the TD than some on this board.

[NFump]

6.05 (h) A batter is out when after hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory....etc, etc. How does this rule fit the original sitch? It doesn't.

There you go "twisting" words. Your example was wrong because it didn't fit the sitch. BigUmp's example didn't fit the sitch and he pointed that out. I would never try to hold you to a standard higher than you could attain. As for the bold letters, they look better than ALL CAPS.

How many more incorrect rule cites are you going to use to bolster your argument? You're beginning to sound like someone else.

[jxt127]

Curiously a very similar although slightly different case was posted on e-teamz. I suspect someone is running around having thier fun. As was happening on Gary's site some people are taking their joy is posting blatantly wrong answers to questions.

Fishing season is upon us here too it seems.

[NFump]

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.

An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch. Another incorrect rule cite.

Bold letters are more appealing than ALL CAPS. What I'd really like you to do is read the rule book at least once. It would really help with the incorrect rule cites. Thanks in advance and have a nice day.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

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.

An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch. Another incorrect rule cite.

Bold letters are more appealing than ALL CAPS. What I'd really like you to do is read the rule book at least once. It would really help with the incorrect rule cites. Thanks in advance and have a nice day.

-----------
Try reading the entire RULE 6.05.h. You don't twist my words, you cut them short to your advantage. Perhaps the BOLDNESS of this statement will clarify things for YOU. After stating there is nothing SIMILAR about my statements, are your going to acuse me of making up the rules like your PARTNERS do?
---
(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire's judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play; If a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If batted ball hits part of broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball. 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. In cases where the batting helmet is accidentally hit with a batted or thrown ball, the ball remains in play the same as if it has not hit the helmet. If a batted ball strikes a batting helmet or any other object foreign to the natural ground while on foul territory, it is a foul ball and the ball is dead. If, in the umpire's judgment, there is intent on the part of a baserunner to interfere with a batted or thrown ball by dropping the helmet or throwing it at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead and runners would return to last base legally touched.
---
"An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch."

Again, another foolish assertion on your part and entirely incorrect. One has everything to do with the original sitch and the other is entirely SIMILAR to the first, unlike the HR comment which you are defending so vigorously.
---
"Another incorrect rule cite."

I have only cited 3 rules and all 3 pertain to the original sitch as enforced by the UMPIRES on the playing field at the time. I was NOT there. I am only pointing OUT how those umpires who were there may believe their actions were RIGHT {FED Rules 2-21 and 7-3-6}. I merely quoted MLB OBR 6.05.h when a very respected member asked about the ruling authority (OBR).

You may agree with others that these rule may have been improperly enforced. Those who disagree were not there and must know the GULF BREEZE version of events was a tainted version of the events. The TRUE version of events has yet to appear on this thread, so we may never really know what may have happened.

In the meantime, I have correctly pointed out the discrepancy in the rulings between one set of rules and another in the SAME rulebook affected the play on the actual ballfield. If more experienced and brighter minds than me do not want to change the rule book to address the conflicting interpretations, then so be it. It is so easy to let it go at that. But if those umpires got the call wrong and it was such a simple call to make; then someone TALLER than me should address the issue.

[SAump]

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

[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!

[NFump]

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

[NFump]

You just can't resist replying can you SA?

[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!

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

[NFump]

Then just read it and quit posting it.

Thanks and have a good day!

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

[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!

[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.