Ball Hit a Second Time

[ozzy6900]

In a recent discussion, a batter offered at and struck a pitched ball sending it high in front of home plate. The batter then released the bat which rolled into fair territory, rolled and then contacted the ball rolling on the ground. I believe umpire at the game called the batter out for twice striking at the ball.

The discussion, as always, led to a slew “this is right” “no, this is right” ad infinitum! I gave up because, frankly, I was getting ticked off at the attacks and the demands to find the related rule.

Well, I finally had the time, so I pulled out the 2005 BRD and looked up the situation. I will reference the rules – you can look the printed rules up for yourselves. I will not reference the comments as I do not have permission to reproduce the text in its entirety

102 BATTER-RUNNER: BATTED BALL HITS: BAT TWICE IN FAIR TERRITORY

FED: If the batter deliberately hits a fair batted ball in fair or foul territory, the ball is dead and the batter is out. (5-1-1b; 8-4-1d) {See Section 101 which refers to a batted ball struck twice while the batter is still in the batter’s box - no relation to our situation}

NCAA: If the batter drops the bat and the ball accidentally hits the bat again in fair territory, the ball remains alive (7:11m)

OBR: Same as NCAA. (6.05h)

The major FED difference is that it is including foul territory to the rule. But the interpretations all agree that in order to call anything on the batter, the umpire must be convinced that the act was intentional. Also be advised, I could not find anything in the PBUC for this action (that’s big boy ball so REAL umpires wouldn’t even be having this discussion). I do not have the MLBUM.

A batter hitting a ball, then releasing (not throwing) the bat, cannot be held responsible for the action of the released bat. Now, to those who disagree, let’s see your proof!

[mcrowder]

I'll try to completely avoid anything that looks like an attack, and my apologies for making you feel like you were under attack in that thread - it was not my intent.

I believe the key difference here is the difference between a moving bat hitting a ball, and a ball hitting a stationary bat. I've always been taught (and this is backed up by the word STATIONARY in the MLBUM) that the rule you quote applies to a moving ball hitting a stationary bat. If a moving ball (in all 3 codes, plus the two softball codes I work - ASA and FED) hits a discarded stationary bat, then, barring intent by the batter, you indeed have "play on..".

However, in all 3 codes (and in softball), if a moving bat hits the ball (regardless of whether the ball was stationary or not), you have an out regardless of intent.

Feel free to educate me.

[David B]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
In a recent discussion, a batter offered at and struck a pitched ball sending it high in front of home plate. The batter then released the bat which rolled into fair territory, rolled and then contacted the ball rolling on the ground. I believe umpire at the game called the batter out for twice striking at the ball.

The discussion, as always, led to a slew “this is right” “no, this is right” ad infinitum! I gave up because, frankly, I was getting ticked off at the attacks and the demands to find the related rule.

Well, I finally had the time, so I pulled out the 2005 BRD and looked up the situation. I will reference the rules – you can look the printed rules up for yourselves. I will not reference the comments as I do not have permission to reproduce the text in its entirety

102 BATTER-RUNNER: BATTED BALL HITS: BAT TWICE IN FAIR TERRITORY

FED: If the batter deliberately hits a fair batted ball in fair or foul territory, the ball is dead and the batter is out. (5-1-1b; 8-4-1d) {See Section 101 which refers to a batted ball struck twice while the batter is still in the batter’s box - no relation to our situation}

NCAA: If the batter drops the bat and the ball accidentally hits the bat again in fair territory, the ball remains alive (7:11m)

OBR: Same as NCAA. (6.05h)

The major FED difference is that it is including foul territory to the rule. But the interpretations all agree that in order to call anything on the batter, the umpire must be convinced that the act was intentional. Also be advised, I could not find anything in the PBUC for this action (that’s big boy ball so REAL umpires wouldn’t even be having this discussion). I do not have the MLBUM.

A batter hitting a ball, then releasing (not throwing) the bat, cannot be held responsible for the action of the released bat. Now, to those who disagree, let’s see your proof!

I had looked up the same thing the other day in my BRD and read the same thing after reading the discussion on a thread.

It also makes common sense for those of us who like to apply the KISS theory to our umpiring.

If you think it through most of the rules make sense as far as interpreting them. Its the way they are written that causes many umpires to question IMO.

After 25 years plus I still find that if I keep it simple when I umpire and when I teach others it usually works very well on the diamond.

Thanks
David

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I'll try to completely avoid anything that looks like an attack, and my apologies for making you feel like you were under attack in that thread - it was not my intent.

I believe the key difference here is the difference between a moving bat hitting a ball, and a ball hitting a stationary bat. I've always been taught (and this is backed up by the word STATIONARY in the MLBUM) that the rule you quote applies to a moving ball hitting a stationary bat. If a moving ball (in all 3 codes, plus the two softball codes I work - ASA and FED) hits a discarded stationary bat, then, barring intent by the batter, you indeed have "play on..".

However, in all 3 codes (and in softball), if a moving bat hits the ball (regardless of whether the ball was stationary or not), you have an out regardless of intent.

Feel free to educate me.

Your's wasn't considered an attack - I am referring to 2 deleted posters and a wandering wise a$$ to the board.

But please educate me and all the others that don't seem to have access to your information. You state all 3 codes refer to a "moving bat". I cannot find any reference to this. Please share your information especially if it is from the MLBUM.

[Rich Ives]

MLBUM Section 6.13

If the batter-runner drops the bat and the ball rolls against the stationary 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, the same as if it had not hit the bat.

If after hitting or bunting a fair ball, the batter's bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory, the
batter is out and the ball is dead. (See Official Baseball Rule 6.05(h).)

[TBBlue]

I am not going to go against MLBUM ruling as far as MLB goes. However, according to knowlegeable people, the MLBUM is available to Major League Umpires, and those who know Major League Umpires who have given them old copies. In a protest situation, the league may or may not have access to this manual.

Does J/R, BRD, or JEA clearly address whether the bat is stationary or not? These manuals are commercially available to the masses, and therefore are more readily accessible to those who would be deciding a protest situation regarding this rule. As such, I am looking at intent more so than whether or not the bat is moving. However, there is the concept mentioned above somewhere about "Ball hits bat=nothing, bat hits ball = Out". This is a HTBT call, use best judgement, and just make the call and live with it. Be an umpire.

[Rich Ives]

JEA is out of print and not readily available. If it were, you'd find:

One out, runners on first and second. The batter bunts the ball and drops his bat. The ball rolls into the bat lying on the ground in fair territory. The catcher fields the ball and fires it to third for the put-out. Does this play stand?
RULING: The runner is declared out and the play stands since there was no intent to interfere and the ball rolled into the bat.


J/R says in 13-3-A-3-b that if the ball strikes a bat that is lying on the ground it is not interference.

To me at least, a bat that is moving is NOT "lying on the ground" and the JEA and J/R is consistent with the MLBUM in that the bat must be stationary.


I can't find the play in the BRD. Either I looked in the wrong place OR the rule is the same in all codes so it is not included.

Do you really think JEA or J/R would attempt to "overrule" the MLBUM?

[Dave Hensley]

You guys are giving examples of the situation Ozzy agrees with - that if a ball hits a stationary bat the play remains alive. He does not argue that point. Rather, he argues the other half of 6.05(h) - he believes if a moving bat hits a batted ball in fair territory, the ball is still live and the batter runner is not out. His position is contradicted by plain old black letter rule:

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. The ball is dead and no runners may advance.

and this caseplay in the JEA:

One out...runner on second base. The batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. The batter drops his bat and it accidentally hits the ball. The catcher fields the ball and retires the runner advancing to third. The batter is safe at first. What's your ruling?
RULING: The runner returns to second. The batter is out. The ball becomes dead immediately when a thrown
bat hits a fair ball a second time.

More black-letter rule:

7.09(b) It is interference by a batter or a runner when 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.

This play from the JEA:

Situations: One out...runners on first and second. The batter bunts the ball in fair territory. He throws the bat down and it touches the bunted ball a second time; however, the catcher is able to field the ball. He throws to second to retire the runner from first. ..and...the relay to first beats the batter-runner.
RULING: The ball is declared dead the moment the bat strikes the ball the second time. The batter is out and all
runners return. No double play.

and this one:

One out...runner on second base. The batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. He drops the bat and it strikes the ball in fair territory. The catcher fields the ball and retires the runner attempting to reach third. Does this play stand?
RULING: When the bat struck the ball the second time...the ball became dead and the batter is declared out. The
runner must return to second.

The previously cited MLBUM ruling.

This statement in the PBUC Manual:

4.16 BATTED BALL STRIKES HELMET OR BAT
If after hitting or bunting a fair ball, the batter's bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory, the batter is out and the ball is dead.

and finally, this Jaksa/Roder citation:

It is interference by a batter-runner if:
(iii) his bat strikes his batted ball a second time over fair territory.
However, it is not interference if;
(a) his batted ball bounces and immediately comes up and hits the bat a second time while the batter is still in the batter's box (foul ball), or
(b) his bat is lying stationary on fair territory and his batted ball rolls up against it, or
(c) his broken bat strikes his batted ball, or hinders a fielder.


Perhaps one or more of these citations will persuade Ozzy that if a batter's moving bat hits a ball in fair territory a second time, the batter is out and there is no requirement that the interference be intentional.

Perhaps not.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
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. The ball is dead and no runners may advance.

and this caseplay in the JEA:

One out...runner on second base. The batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. The batter drops his bat and it accidentally hits the ball. The catcher fields the ball and retires the runner advancing to third. The batter is safe at first. What's your ruling?
RULING: The runner returns to second. The batter is out. The ball becomes dead immediately when a thrown
bat hits a fair ball a second time.

More black-letter rule:

7.09(b) It is interference by a batter or a runner when 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.

This play from the JEA:

Situations: One out...runners on first and second. The batter bunts the ball in fair territory. He throws the bat down and it touches the bunted ball a second time; however, the catcher is able to field the ball. He throws to second to retire the runner from first. ..and...the relay to first beats the batter-runner.
RULING: The ball is declared dead the moment the bat strikes the ball the second time. The batter is out and all
runners return. No double play.

and this one:

One out...runner on second base. The batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. He drops the bat and it strikes the ball in fair territory. The catcher fields the ball and retires the runner attempting to reach third. Does this play stand?
RULING: When the bat struck the ball the second time...the ball became dead and the batter is declared out. The
runner must return to second.

The previously cited MLBUM ruling.

This statement in the PBUC Manual:

4.16 BATTED BALL STRIKES HELMET OR BAT
If after hitting or bunting a fair ball, the batter's bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory, the batter is out and the ball is dead.

and finally, this Jaksa/Roder citation:

It is interference by a batter-runner if:
(iii) his bat strikes his batted ball a second time over fair territory.
However, it is not interference if;
(a) his batted ball bounces and immediately comes up and hits the bat a second time while the batter is still in the batter's box (foul ball), or
(b) his bat is lying stationary on fair territory and his batted ball rolls up against it, or
(c) his broken bat strikes his batted ball, or hinders a fielder.


Perhaps one or more of these citations will persuade Ozzy that if a batter's moving bat hits a ball in fair territory a second time, the batter is out and there is no requirement that the interference be intentional.

Perhaps not.

Thank You, Dave. I did miss 4.16 in the PBUC. I opened the damn thing up just now and there it was starring me in the face. OBR 6.05(h) & 7.09(b) have only come into play for me when I used to do younger players. We all seen the youth batter trying to bunt or taking the lazy swing and contacting the ball twice. Might I add that neither rule have any mention of a released bat. Most of us assume that the batter is still holding the bat. But the PBUC (at least for me) is the best explaination. Now after 20 years of plate work, I've never seen a released bat contact a fair batted ball, but when I do, I'll rule with confidence!

This is a great example of how to answer a question. Dave didn't just sit there and say "it's in the MLBUM", a book that most of us are not privy to. He sited material that most of us have. Yes, I missed it and now I am more educated. Yes, I'm a stubborn old fart and I admit it. Thanks again, Dave!

[Dave Hensley]

My pleasure.

[mcrowder]

Dave - great, complete answer.

Ozzy - I don't have my books in front of me at work. My apologies.

[TBBlue]

Thanks Dave,
Cleared it up for me as well.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Dave - great, complete answer.

Ozzy - I don't have my books in front of me at work. My apologies.

No problem, I have the same problem. Still friends and no apologies necessary!

[UmpJM]

Ozzy,

I am glad to see that Dave H.'s well-written and thoroughly documented post has clarified the proper application of this rule for you. And I certainly agree with your assertion:

"This is a great example of how to answer a question."

However, I find your characterization of the discussion on the previous thread disingenuous at best. (For anyone who cares, it's the thread titled "2 calls" initiated by bossman72.)

Having read through the previous thread carefully, the only thing written that could in any way be reasonably characterized as an "attack" were my comments in my initial post on the thread, quoted below:

I'm not sure where ozzy gets his material, but he really ought to find another source. He has misinformed you in both cases, and your partner's rulings were correct in both cases (assuming played under OBR - which is what the "big boys" who play MLB play under). He has apparently never actually seen a rulebook. Unfortunately, he has no hesitation in spreading his misconceptions - as if he were someone who knew what he was talking about.

While I suppose these comments were "unnecessary", I don't believe they were in any sense "uncalled for".

The reasons I included them in my response to Bossman's questions were:

1. He said he was an "inexperienced umpire".

2. He asked reasonable questions about two calls his more experienced partner had made in a recent game to verify their correctness.

3. You gave him incorrect answers to both of his questions in your initial post on the thread.

4. You included disparaging remarks about LL in your post that were both irrelevant and "uncalled for". (No, I don't "do" LL.)

5. I found the "tone" of your reply arrogant and condescending.

6. You seemed to present yourself as an "expert", yet offered no "source" for the misinformation you were spreading (i.e. rule cite, accepted interpretation).

I found the combination of ignorance and arrogance embodied in your reply annoying and irresponsible.

I believe that most of the people who come to this forum do so in order to improve their understanding of the rules and to assist those less experienced in improving theirs. I thought your initial post was detrimental to the purpose of the board.

Since bossman72 is relatively new to the board, I thought I'd give him a "heads up" that you can't take everything you read as "gospel".

While I generally refrain from making antagonistic "ad hominem" comments in my posts on this board (those would be comments such as:

"I am referring to 2 deleted posters and a wandering wise a$$ to the board."

or

"How many of you "coaches" just sat there scratching your a$$es until one of us REAL Umpires posted?"

in case I'm not being clear), on occasion it seems appropriate. Also, if you can't "take it", don't "dish it out".

Again, as a point of fact, the only thing that could be construed as a "demand(s) to find the related rule" in the entire thread (you seem to suggest this is a bad thing???) is mcrowder's reasonable request:

"If you still think you're right, tell us why and post the rule."

in response to your "I'm taking my ball and going home" post, which you offered as your last comment in response to bossman72's reasonable questions.

Ultimately, the readers of this board will make their own decision as to whether your comments or mine contributed more to the discussion and whether your characterization of the discussion or mine was more accurate.

Having said all of this, I have no interest in "feuding" with you.

I thought your comments in this post represented an intelligent inquiry into the proper application of a rule which is commonly misunderstood because of the way it is worded. If you enjoy making occasional "wisecracks" in your posts, hey, it's a free country - I certainly have no business sugggesting you shouldn't.

By way of a "peace offering", I would like to offer the following. You seem to think you would be violating copyright law if you were to post selected portions of Carl's BRD in support of a position you had on a question. Now, I am NOT a lawyer (despite my opaque and verbose writing style), but I believe that this would be perfectly OK. I'm sure Carl will not be "shy" in correcting me if I have misspoken on this point. I would encourage you to read the U.S. Copyright Office's discussion of "Fair Use" which can be found at the link below and decide for yourself.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Peace.

JM

[Dave Hensley]

Just when we were all fixing to have a group hug and sing Kum-baya.