AH HA!! "They've been right all along!"
 

Indisputable PROOF! You "know-it-all" umpires are proven WRONG! HA HA HA!

Yes, the HANDS

ARE

Part of the BAT! (for they couldn't say it if it were not true!)

Mariners | Notebook | Bunt attempt ends badly for Rob Johnson | Seattle Times Newspaper


The relevant text:

He ran slowly toward first, wondering if it might be called a foul ball. It wasn't because a hand on the bat is considered part of the bat.

You are absolutley, indisputably correct! And the pitch was a rising fastball, too!

of course
 

if its printed in a newspaper its got to be correct......right????:rolleyes:

Maybe if we leave enough comments, the reporter will learn something. Or not.

Sadly, I think it would be "affimation" in the reporter's mind that umpires are an incompetent lot.

I did get an MLB.com reporter to change a story last year...he had Interference and Obstruction confused and he ACTUALLY thanked me for correcting him.

I once edited a story on Carlos Delgado's four-homer game, in which the reporter (from a major baseball site) wrote the following passage: "It was the first four-homer game of Delgado's career." At that time, Delgado became the 13th player since the dawn of the modern era in 1900 to accomplish the feat. But the reporter actually felt the need to make it known that of the paltry dozen such occurrences in a 104-year period, not one was credited to Delgado.

It might have been the most memorable idiotic reference I have read. And it was from a major league baseball reporter writing for an elite entity.

The standard for the competence of a major league reporter has never been lower. There are 20 and 30-year veteran writers--real writers--who don't even speak to idiots like the young reporter of this Seattle story.

I'm confused. Did the umpire get this wrong? If the pitch hit his hand, it should have been a dead ball. If the pitch hit the bat and then his hand, it should be a foul ball. Am I missing something?

If, as the article states, the pitch hit his hand while he was attempting to hit the ball, the ball is dead and a strike is charged to the batter. If that was the third strike he would be out. It is not a foul ball.

Right. There's no way the umpire got this call right. It was either a dead ball, strike or not. Or it was a foul ball.

:confused: This goes to show that even the PROs get it wrong once in a while. I was at a PRO game and watched the UMPs screw up twice in the 50 years that I have been going.:p

Here's the video of the play:
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4612213

But what's worse? That one reporter and one broadcaster didn't know the rule, or that four umpires couldn't figure out that the ball hit the batter's hand?

One umpire. I think it's doubtful the other three would or could have anything to give the PU in this case. And it's not like this is really easy for the PU to see.

So he missed it. It happens. Big deal.

As an Ms fan I can tell you a missed call will not be the reason they will be fighting to stay out of the cellar this year yet again.