Ignore or not

[SanDiegoSteve]

I came across this on the league I umpire in's Website in the umpire forum:

[tballump]

And where is that rat coach going to be when some catcher calls his bluff, and has a pitcher drill his player in the head for this bush-league crap? That gutless coach isn't taking that headshot for that low rent, dirt ball, coaching tactic, his player is. He is over their in the comfort of the dugout letting his own player get drilled while he is thinking what a great coach he is. Let him come to bat and take the headshot. Then we will see what a great tactic that is.

[UmpJM]

tballump,

Wow! The T-Ball in your neighborhood is a lot more "old school" than in mine.

Steve,

I agree that it is interference and the batter out if the umpire judges that he intentionally "released" the bat in a way intended to hit the ball.

However, if he just "normally" releases the bat, without any intent, and the bat happens to hit the ball (...which the defense has just "misplayed", resulting in the batter becoming a runner...) in a way that "complicates" the play of the defense, he is NOT guilty of interference, and it's "live ball, play the bounce". "That's Nothing!" would be the appropriate verbal.

The rule you cite applies when the bat complicates the play of the defense on a batted ball, not a "misplayed" ball that the defense is chasing. (And, apparently, as of 2009, on a "thrown" ball as well.)

JM

[dash_riprock]

7-3-6 refers to a thrown bat interfering with a player attempting a play. A bat dropped normally (with intent only to drop the bat, not direct it) is not a thrown bat. If the batter directed the bat at the ball, I would consider it "thrown." If it hindered the fielder's ability to attempt the play, e.g., knocked the ball farther away from him, I have INT.