Hit ball twice while in batter's box
 

Had this happen in a kids game a few days ago. Batter hits the ball into fair territory, it dribbles in front of home plate, and then while he is still in the batter's box he tosses his bat and the bat hits the ball. Can't remember if the bat had left his hands or not.

I let the play stand as the batter was in the batter's box when he hit it a second time and as far as I could tell there was no intention to hit the ball a second time. It was more out of inexperience and not knowing what to do with the bat that made him hit the ball, but really there didn't seem to be any intent. I let the play stand, but now I'm thinking that I was wrong and it should have been called a foul ball.

I'm not being facetious at all here, honest, but do you own a rule book? If not, PM me your address and I'll send one, free.

Usually when someone says the ball 'dribbles' on a baseball diamond they're describing a slow rolling grounder, the emhasis being on roll.

I'm also a little confused here. You first said the batter 'tosses' his bat and then said you can't remember if the bat was still in his hands. You need to know this because it makes a difference as to whether or not you have a foul ball or a batter-runner out for interference. I don't know of a resource where you'll find this in writing, but traditionally when a batted ball goes straight down and 'bounces' back up making contact with the bat over fair territory as the batter-runner is exiting the box, it's ruled a foul ball. Now if he tosses it before the contact it's interference. The key to rembering this is.......


Ball hits bat...........foul ball.

Bat hits ball...........interference.


Tim.

Bigump
 

Yeah, I didn't really explain the ruling correctly. However it was a case of bat hitting ball, thus I should have called him out.

Are you related to canadaump06? Like Garth's, this is a serious question.

The bat hitting the ball in and of itself is not automatically INT if it does not actually interfere with a fielder's ability to make a play.

From 7-3-6

ART. 6... If the bat breaks and is hit by the ball or hits a runner or a fielder, no interference shall be called. If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called.

You as umpire have to judge that there was in fact INT.

Sorry about quoting you on this one but I thought it was necessary. I don't know a Canadaump06.

1) Canadaump6 uses OBR, not FED.

2) The rule you reference refers to a bat "interfering" with a fielder. The play involves a bat "interfereing" with a ball. Different rule.

3) What seems to matter in FED is intent, although there's some controversy. See 2.5.1E (which would have this as a fair ball) and 8.4.1A (which would have this as an out -- but may be opnly because B1 was still holding the bat).

I'm not sure, but I think the intent of the rule you quoted involves bats that go flying out of a batter's hands; not simply a dropped bat.

If a batter hits a slow roller in front of the plate and simply drops his bat (in a normal manner), and the catcher stumbles over the bat as he goes out to field the ball, I would probably not call interference on the batter as I would if the bat went flying out of his hands and the shortstop had to be concerned with getting clobbered while trying to field a grounder.

The batter is under no obligation to discard his bat in a certain location. What he cannot do, however, is:
1) Fling his bat (whether intentional or not) in such a way as to complicate a fielding attempt, or
2) Drop his bat in such a way as to intentionally complicate the catcher's attempt to make a play on a batted ball, or
3) Drop/throw his bat and make direct contact with a fair ball.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Do the books come in pairs?

Try 8-4-1-d

Thanks for the correction - I knew I had seen it I just couldn't remember where and for some goofy reason I then proceeded to quote the wrong reference. Sometimes you wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea if they combined the rule book and case book into one. You would think that FED could charge twice as much!!!