In a recent Town & Country Tournament game, the plate umpire ruled that a pitch that struck a hitter on the hands was a "foul ball" because the hands and fingers are part of the bat. The pitched ball was not in the strike zone, the batter attempted to avoiid being hit, and the batter was not swinging. I say the batter is awarded first base. How do you convince someone that the bat doesn't have hands?

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!


Okay, ask the coach to see if there are bats growing out of the players hands. If there are, tell him that the players have to leave their hands in the dugout when they go on defense!

Also, if anyone finds a bat with hands growing out of it, it is probably a bat from a 1950's Atomic Attack movie. You will need 6 cloves of garlic and a beautiful girl to kill the "bat hands". If that fails, call the Air Force to get the Flying Wing airborne with a Neutron bomb. That should negate the atomic reaction on the bat!

Thank you for your support! I was actually coaching in this tournament and the plate umpire was a VERY nice guy. However, he was not willing to listen to reason on that particular point. He said he had called the hands part of the bat for years and that's the way it was going to stay. I even quoted the rule about a pitched ball hitting any part of the batter or his clothing (as long as the batter isn't swinging, the ball isn't in the strike zone, and the batter attempts to avoid being hit). He told me the rule book didn't specifically say the hands WEREN'T part of the bat. So how do you deal with this? I certainly didn't want to get ejected......it was my lead off hitter in the very first inning!!!!!!!!

Jeffrey,
Well, the Little League Casebook specifically says that, I know, and it is based upon OBR. ;)
mick

Protest
 

Assuming your league allows protests, and ensuring absolutely without a doubt that the umpire said the ball hit the hands first, and being absolutely positive that you wish to lodge the protest . . . before the next pitch, lodge a protest of the game regarding misapplication of the rule.

Jerry

P.S. Be absolutely sure that the PU acknowledges his ruling that the ball hit the hands FIRST.

"He told me the rule book didn't specifically say the hands WEREN'T part of the bat."

It doesn't say the nose isn't part of the bat, or the legs, or the helmet, or.... The rule book doesn't say the hands ARE part of the bat.

Bob

Keep your cool and gently remind him that 5.09 says a ball becomes dead when a pitched ball touches a batter or his clothing while in his legal batting position.

It may also benefit him and the rest of his association if you could print out the 40 myths of baseball to give to him AFTER the game.

Jerry

Forty Myths of Baseball
 

http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/rules/obr/myths/

A lot of these can make for a decent training session for umpires AND coaches alike. Spectators should also be handed a copy of them as they enter the ball park.

But then . . . if everyone knew the rules and interpretations, what kind of fun would that be?

Jerry

Went into this milliner's yesterday, looking for a present for my wife. Saw this beautiful bonnet, except that it had two gaudy decorative ribbons around it, attached I don't know how. Told the clerk I'd buy it if he could remove the ribbons, but he just said, "Sorry, pal, the bands are part of the hat."

I love it! By the way, when an ump or coach or spectator says that the rule book doesn't say that the hands are not part of the bat . . . refer them to OBR 1.10 which does in fact define exactly what a bat can and cannot be. Specifically 1.10(c). By that rule alone, the hands cannot be part of the bat.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the defense appealed the umpires ruling that the single that was just hit off the hands was made by using an illegal bat!

Jerry