whats the rulebook say
 

we are in a u 10 ussa tourny ..a batter hit the catcher during the progress of the game and scored a triple scoring two runs..no warning and he was ejected form this game .the runs were taken away and he is going to be ejected for the rest of the tourny..please help what is the ruleing.by the book...this was a accedent..help

I'd love to help. First, try reposting your question using understandable English. Tell the story in chronological order...what happened first, what happened next, what happened after that, etc.

The way it stands now, we are left trying to understand how "scoring a triple scoring two runs" can be the result of hitting a catcher. Get your thoughts in order.

By the way...in many cases, intent is not a factor, so whether or not an "accident" was involved may be meaningless.

the rule book is often available from whoever runs your league. if you follow OBR (aka Pro Rules, Major League Rules) then you can find it in most book stores

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..

Scene A or Scene B?
 

A) While hitting the catcher on the back swing, the batter was still holding onto the bat in the back of the batter's box.
or
B) While releasing the bat after the swing, the bat flew backward and hit the catcher after being tossed by the batter as the batter began to run to first base.

b is the answer thank you again

Need More Info?
 

Ok, the batter released the bat and hit the catcher.

How many outs, what inning, and did the coach discuss the matter with PU?

How did this play have an impact on the final score?

[QUOTE=SAump]Ok, the batter released the bat and hit the catcher.

How many outs, what inning, and did the coach discuss the matter with PU?

How did this play have an impact on the final s..this isnt a friggin round table forum jerk off what does the rool book say about the infracton...whatever..thats whay blues are hated around the globe..

alrighty then. close thread, delete user.

[QUOTE=gulf breeze] WOW ! What a vitriolic response to a question ! I must agree with
briancurtin. Scotty, beam this jerk up.

Ruling is FINAL
 

[QUOTE=gulf breeze]-------------

Batter is out for interference. If it is the third out then the runs are wiped out too because the runs had not crossed the plate at the time the out occurred.

The batter is ejected if there was malicious contact. The batter is DQ from the rest of the tourney as a result of the ejection.

Your personal comments were not warranted, you may acompany the batter to the parking lot.

Now, had you been more willing to discuss the situation like a REAL man, then the batter may have gotten away with a warning depending on the league rules. Tourney rules are different.

After reading your comments about BLUES (me), I say YOU GOT what YOU DESERVE.

I don't see interference here. What I see is a carelessly discarded bat and an umpire with a limited understanding of the rules of youth baseball. Someone who works USSSA will be better suited to answer your question, but in Little League and Babe Ruth, a carelessly discarded bat warrants a bench warning and an ejection on the next offense. Even with an ejection the only youth organization that I know that calls the offender out is Dizzy Dean.


Tim.

[QUOTE=SAump]Please explain why the batter is out for interference.

Careful there
 

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

Should this discarded bat scenario happen after a warning has been issued to the same player and an ejection follows, do you allow a proper baserunning substitution for the responsible party? I know of a catcher who was severely injured by one of those carelessly discarded bats. 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.

I suppose it is easy for an UMPIRE of your caliber to sit on the sidelines and criticize the rulings of every other umpire. I supppose the umpires at that tournament did not fully comprehend the rules either. Please explain why the umpires at that ballpark decided to bend the rules and eject the offender and wipe the runs off the board. Perhaps you may write a letter to the TD and offer your services at the next clinic.

Definition & Learning
 

[QUOTE=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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=SAump]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."

Touche'
 

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.

Wrong Sitch
 

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

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.

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.

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.

How to handle a collision with the bat
 

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

Check out the postgame video.

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

On the Money
 

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.

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.


http://www.fecesflingingmonkey.com/0403/helmet.jpg




Tim.

Conundrum
 

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.

Left Out an IMPT One
 

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).

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.

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.

SAUmp,

Please provide me the name of your pharmacist or subscribing physician. I need some of what you are taking!! Where do you come up with some of the stuff you say?

Do you call strikes on batter's if the offensive team is not in the bench area? Any other situations where we can get some easy outs?

Bob P.

What part?
 

What part of carelessly thrown bat do you not understand? The penalty.
YOU quoted rule 3-3 which vaguely applies to everybody on the field.
You'll have difficulty applying a rule that addresses the both coaches, players and attendants from both teams.
Where did you get that 3-3-E scenario? I suggest you find another part of the rule book if you want to address my concerns. Bench and Field Conduct may cover the subsequent action which follows.

I quoted rule 2-21. The penalty for interference is an OUT.
The batter is responsible for his bat making contact with the catcher.
I have no qualms about enforcing a rule that actually addresses the batter's inappropriate actions, such as 7-3 ART 6.

Please tell me what part of the above case play don't you understand? You should note that in (a) above the intentional act does not warrant an out call. The batter-runner is ejected and then replaced on the bases.

Tim.

ESE,

Are you saying that batters are not "players" or that runners are not "players?" I believe they are both covered since they qualify as players.

7-3 Batting Infractions
 

"A Batter shall NOT:
Art. 6 ... If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference WILL be called."

PENALTY: For infraction of Art. 6, the batter is out and runners return. If, in the umpire's judgement, interference prevented a possible double play, two players may be ruled out.

Help yourselves.

The play is specifically covered in the casebook. This is a scenario which we have the exact, explicit desire and ruling of FED, and you want to do something completely different.

If you don't feel bound to FED rules and rulings, feel free. The rest of us will call it correctly.

The catcher was NOT attempting a play.

Try again.

Doesn't Add Up
 

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

I'm trying to figure out like everybody else just what the FED wants me to do.
7-3-6 + 2-21 doesn't equal 3-3.
I try to call it like I see it.

Don't get mad if you scored a hundred on the test and real life is more complicated.

I'm not mad. Not much in real life is more complicated than FED, however, in this instance FED was kind enough to give exact directions.

It would be less complicated for you if you didn't continue to make changes to the scenario and try to create rulings. Take a deep breath and accept reality.

I'll leave it at this. If any of you newbies are even remotely confused about this, don't be. It's pretty basic stuff. No matter how many times or how many different rules SA tries to bend to suit his own agenda, he has nothing supported by the rules to make this call. He is leading you to a potential protest should you follow his advice. As officials we are circumscribed by the rules and must remain within those boundries. We cannot make stuff up as we go along. There is a difference between being rules ignorant and being just plain ignorant. If you're not inclined to listen to my advice then listen to Garth B.



Tim.

And I'll leave it at this: Two of the classes I teach are comprised completely of freshman. They are fond of questioning the material by either straying from the point being made or attempting to apply the lesson at hand to circumstances governed by another lesson.

In other words, my day job is pretty much like dealing with SA's posts in this thread, so I don't get frustrated or annoyed. I'm used to it. I've found in the classroom that 99% of the time patience and logic will eventually win out over ignorance and defiance. Those rare cases in which it doesn't usually involves "repeat offenders" who demonstrate the same characteristics in other areas of their lives as well.

So much for "no child left behind."

Good night, Tim. My son gets in at the airport at 8:00 tomorrow morning so I'm heading off to bed.

Psssst.......you guys........shhhhhh!!!!! Gather around close......SA is pulling everyone's leg here. I firmly believe he says this crap just to get us going.

Look at this 3 page thread, which was started by some toothless redneck illiterate umpire basher who had been out in the gulf breeze too long, and the rest of it is all SA trying to be a low-budget Lance Cokalinski. At least Lance is funny and entertaining. I get physically ill reading most of SA's stuff. And then there is the occasional moment of clarity, which leads me to believe even more, that the rest of the time he just jerkin' us around.

You guys gotta realize who you're arguing with here... I mean i remember reading before that this is the same guy who will call a balk on a pitcher for not doing the same motion every time he pitches... *roll eyes*

Why not join those of us who are enjoying life more thanks to the "ignore list"?

I thought about putting him and one other member on my ignore list but decided not to. My decision was made because in the past few months there have been less and less posts made by the higher quality umpiring minds on this board. We don't hear from Carl at all and Tee, Bob J, Garth, Sal, Ozzy, LDUB, and several others are posting more infrequently. Windy seems sort of engulfed in the AMLU issue so he doesn't say much outside of those threads either. This leads to erroneous information being left on the board by a few individuals. I figure that if we all put them on ignore then the only ones who'll see this garbage are newbies. This is a quality site where people come to get correct rulings or at least get pointed in the right direction. These tenents will be lost if there is no one left to dispute this nonsense.


Tim.

[QUOTE=SAump]1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?

Thread Speaks for the Bored
 

Suggestion for 2007 Fed Rules Committee

SAump brings OUT a glaring hole between RULE 3-3 and RULE 7-6.

It isn't PRETTY calling an ambulance to come cart off the catcher after a triple. It isn't very satisfying watching the sub-runner score a run on a PASS BALL, because the newbie sub-catcher had no experience behind the plate. I cannot suppport RULE 3-3 because I have seen some of these plays up close and personal. I will continue to enforce RULE 7-6 and take my stand in front of the protest committee. I will not turn and hide from another collision at the plate. Its just a GAME to be continued SAFELY. I lose nothing for trying. JMOHO.

Perhaps FED hid the INFRACTION in 3-3 because FED (YOU and all other ruling bodies, except ONE) will allow the batter to hit the catcher with the bat after a swing and continue on to 1B, 2B, 3B or HR. If that is a POSITION you feel is acceptable, DO NOTHING and enforce 3-3.

--------------------
One thing I know about this thread, each one of my post was ON TOPIC. You twist and ignore my words and make things UP about my comments. I could point at the insults and I could easily turn your words around ti-for-tat. I laugh and learn how your sling insults from the peanut gallery to elevate your STATUS. I don't try to alter the direction of YOUR comments. I am not interested and I choose to let that roll off me. PEACE.
-----------------------------

Jmoho
 

[QUOTE=Rich Ives]--------

1) Out for Interference, MLB 6.05.h.
2) Ejected for MC.

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.

[QUOTE=gulf breeze]You're the reason we think many coaches and parents are idiots.

Anything else?
 

[QUOTE=Rich Fronheiser]You are the bigger MAN.

Left Under the BUS
 

--------------------
Hey guys, since you like to chew your food, I want to let you know that I am about well-done on this issue. Why don't you go back and chew up the red meat left under the bus. I would like to see HOW you swallow the UMPS/TD who were at the BALLGAME. I already know how you feel about the call. I want to know how enjoy the rest of the meal.

Let me put it this way. I suppose it is easy for an UMPIRE of your caliber to sit on the sidelines and criticize the rulings of every other umpire. I supppose the umpires at that tournament did not fully comprehend the rules either. Please explain why the umpires at that ballpark decided to bend the rules and eject the offender and wipe the runs off the board. Perhaps you may write a letter to the TD and offer your services at the next clinic.

I would like to read that letter.

This is easily explained. The umpire that made this call was as ignorant as you are when it comes to the rules of the game. As for the TD, I don't know too many TD's that know the difference between obstruction and interference, so his input on the play should come as no surprise. There's an old saying. When it's you against the world, the smart money is on the world.



Tim.

You may want to delete this too.
 

Quote:
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).

My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat. Your HR rule does not address any issues in this thread. It is so far off base, it has no bearing on this thread at all, and is the ONLY example obsolete to the play at hand. You are grasping at straws out of thin air, Tim. May I suggest if the HR shoe doesn't fit, you must NOT BUY INTO IT. Please delete your stupid opinion before anybody else reads it and thinks we are discussing RUNS. I can breath easily about my opinions on OUTS.

This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.


SAump [quote=Rich Ives] Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by SAump

1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
--------

1) Out for Interference, MLB 6.05.h.
2) Ejected for MC.

What in the hell does this have to do with the situation at hand?!:confused: The bat never hit the ball a second time. Do you actually read the rule before you quote it? On topic my pa-tootie!:mad:

A Beautiful Moment
 

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."
Originally Posted by SAump
"My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat."
-------------------
Originally Posted by NFump
This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.
-------------------
Thank you for the RE-clarification back to my first quote.
Hopefully YOU wil recognize a similarity with the original TOPIC.
I hate when my words are twisted around.
I was going nuts looking for a HOME RUN ball.
Some ONE else is guilty of using of flawed logic.
What does a HR rule have to do with any of this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Left Under the BUS?
 

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

a accedent..help
 

Let's no longer expect our athletes (some as young as 8 years old) to take responsibility for their actions. We can always ask others to help bail them out of any difficult situation. And we ask ourselves why athletes behave as they do.

You guys are clueless.

Let's Move ON to 3-3-n
 

Did the batter by carelessly releasing the bat and hitting the catcher initiate malicious contact?

If NO, why the ejection and not the warning?

If YES, then by RULE 3-3-n the proper call was made on the field.

PENALTY: The umpire shall eject the offender from the game. Failure to comply shall result in in the game being forfeited. In (n), the ejected player is declared OUT, unless he has already scored.
------------------
I will now leave this thread UP for further comment from the general audience. Out of respect for my non-involvement, please no longer address me in any of your comments. My opinion has been stated and is well known. As I stated earlier, 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.
Best wishes and have a pleasant week.

You're considering a thrown bat malicious content?

Good thing you won't respond to me calling you the biggest idiot I've ever seen on this board. And that's saying quite a bit.

You're leaving? Ahhh, I see. Well, you just keep on calling them anyway you feel. Rulebook? You don't need no stinking rulebook. Hec, you don't even need to use the correct rule set, just throw any old rules into the mix, them coaches don't know no better anyhow. You have a good day and a better tomorrow.

It's time to delete this insane thread. Sometimes I feel like I should be handing out medication instead of answering baseball questions.

Sheeze.

Bob P.

Self-medication? :D

I think that it's impossible for a fastball to rise.

Unless a "scab" throws it. :D

Yep, everyone here is totally clueless except for you, SA! That's the ticket.:rolleyes:

Self medicate? I want what he's smokin'!!!!! :rolleyes:

Who's the IDIOT?
 

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

Ruling: 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.
--------------------
Sitch: A team is winning or losing 22 -7

Earlier you eject a player or coach for arguing balls and stikes.

The team "idol" comes to the plate and just misses a HOME RUN swing.
The ball dribbles out toward 3B.
The batter knows the probable result is an out so he throws the bat in anger.
The third baseman makes a bad throw and the batter reaches on an error.
You eject this player for intentionally hitting the catcher or UMP with a BAT and then you allow a SUB to take his place.
You guys are either TOO NICE or clueless!
That is MC.
LMAOFTS

I just got home from a 9 inning marathon game. The pitching was, shall we say, undesirable on both sides. After the game my partner and I decided to stop by the local watering hole and drown a few brewski's, so admittedly I may be a little slow on the uptake tonight. Is it just me or does this last post by the San Antonio genius seem extra unintelligible even by his standards?



Tim.

One of the more entertaining threads we've had in a while, wouldn't you all say?

I feel like I'm hitting myself with a heavy book in the head over and over in the head, or I'm listening to Disco Music.

This is why it is sometimes hard to read this board, yet when I do, I seem to get some good laughs, but don't learn how to be a better umpire as much as I want to. I'm only 2nd year, so I do enjoy reading peoples interpretations on things, but I dislike reading total disregards for the rules. Maybe its time to start the use of the ignore feature.

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.

1st Place .................................
 

We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO




Doug

Maybe, maybe not.

Some leagues have a local rule that a batter is out for throwing a bat (perhaps after a warning).

Maybe the game in the OP was played under these rules; maybe the umpire was used to umpiring under these rules (in which case he's still wrong, but it's understandable).

Neutral Cite
 

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.

Quite often I hear that umpires call the batter out for doing this. Sometimes it is after a warning and sometimes without. This is not correct. The defense hasn't earned an out. The batter should be called out, only if the throwing of the bat interfered with an attempted play by the defense.

The Official Little League policy that I was given from Western Region is:
After the first occurrence, inform the player and the manager that if this or any other player lets go of the bat again, he will be removed from the game. He may remain on the bench, he just can't play anymore in that game.

Submitted by: Jim Booth

Sorry, but once again you're wrong. Williamsport has made it very clear that there will be no more administrative removal. I've already given you a direct quote from the Rules Instruction Manual that's handed out exclusively to regional clinicians. As knoweldgable as Jim is, he holds no official position within the heirarcy of the Little League organization, hence whatever insight he's given you on this matter is one based purely on opinion.



Tim.

Found on internet, Age 8-10
 

6.7 THROWN BAT -

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.

I went back and quoted my first post in this thread for you, SA. Notice in the post where I mention that Dizzy Dean is the only organization that I'm aware of that has a provision for calling a batter out for a carelessly discarded bat. That's exactly where you found that rule, so it still does nothing to support your nonsense.


Tim.

What's the record for the longest thread that said nothing new?

<i>Notice in the post where I mention that Dizzy Dean is the only organization that I'm aware of that has a provision for calling a batter out for a carelessly discarded bat. That's exactly where you found that rule, so it still does nothing to support your nonsense.</i>

I can't find any 6.7.1 in Dizzy Dean. I can only find a bat slinging rule for the two 8 and under groups and it's rule 20:01.

One high riding possibility
 

The original (as it pertains to me) RISING FASTBALL MYTH was viewed well over 3000 times and had just short of 300 posts. It was then deleted by the original author who thought nothing of the contibutions from every other member. I lost at least 30 in that one thread.

This whole friggin' thread is making me dizzy, Dean.:eek:

Well, I'll wait for him to post where he came up with that rule then, Rich. You and I both know that we discussed the Dizzy Dean rule on eteamz earlier this month. I pulled the rule off of their web-site then and really didn't see the need to re-confirm what the number of the rule was.


Tim.

I deleted the thread because it was like arguing with a four year old child. Your use of misdirection by posting equations non essential to the debate became sickening, so I killed it.


Tim.

:eek: The mind shudders at the tragedy.

The thing you guys are not TAKING into account here is LIFT. Surely you all realize that LIFT is the reason the batter is ejected and out. That AND random capiTALIZation of words.

Mike:

I was sure someone would RISE to the occasion and put a new SPIN on the play. Even though the MASS of the bat was PROPELLED with such FORCE that it FLEW into the catcher, there is no way to call the batter out, and that's just a DRAG!


Tim.

Enuf SAid
 

http://experts.about.com/q/Baseball-...bat-ruling.htm

Didn't I post a very SIMILAR example? I guess I just made this stuff up too.

Volunteer Expert: Mike Fortunato

Expertise: Can answer questions regarding baseball instruction for hitting (including bunting), fielding (infield and outfield positions), baserunning, and coaching. Also have a thorough knowledge of rules, and on coaching strategies to win games.
Life Experience:

Experience in the area

Lots of semi-pro playing experience, and have also coached extensively. Also have considerable experience as an umpire at most developmental levels.




And your point is?


Tim.

I'm NOT TALL Enuf
 

Batter is OUT for interference

Batter is ejected and DQ from the rest of the tourney.

There can be no protest because tourney rules are different.

The umpires leave the field with TD immediately after a game.

THE END.

Baseball Talk
 

You are here: Experts > Sports > Minor League Baseball > Baseball Instruction > Thrown bat ruling

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

HUH? Where does he get obstruction from? Oh yeah, I want to listen to him give rule interps. Good one SA! Really shored up your side with this one.

What make Mike Fortunato an expert - that he agrees with you?

He would void a run because of obstruction?

He doesn't understand that an ejection takes effect after the play is over?

Perhaps he, and you, should read

http://www.littleleague.org/askll/05febsession.asp

where the LL UIC answers a question about thrown bats.

Fortunato is flat out wrong wrong wrong.

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" id="AutoNumber1" border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="388"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" width="434">Ray, a local Little League umpire-in-chief in Spring Hill, Fla., asks: </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="4"> </td> <td width="426">How do you handle or what can be done when a batter throws the bat after a hit, striking another player with the thrown bat? I would assume that if done intentionally, it would be unsportsmanlike conduct, but what about the player who just does it as a reflex action?</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" width="434">Andy:</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="4">
</td> <td width="426">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. There is no rule that allows an umpire to call a batter out for throwing the bat, under any circumstances (even if intentional).

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bbbbbbbuuuutttttt MMMMiikkkeee ssssaaaiiid..........
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Dolt
 

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.

Thanks Rich
 

This is the type of info that HELPS.


"The rules have ordained that there will be a catcher. Had there not been such a rule very early on, no-one in his right mind would ever have said, “Hey, let me stand behind that batsman and see if I can catch that ball without being hit by it or the bat.” "