Ignore or not

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

In the OP, the discarded bat did not hinder catcher fielding the ball, the catcher's wild throw was the issue/question. It is not clear whether pitched ball was fair or foul but it was clearly not a batted ball. 7-3-6 is about a thrown bat.

So it appears that defense erred in throwing a wild pitch and offense is penalized because bat discarded contacts the pitch that has not been secured by the catcher.

Need something other than 7-3-6 to convince me this is INT, for this OP.

How do you figure that the "discarded" (i.e., THROWN, as I've never seen a batter gently lay his bat down to "discard" it, and I can safely ascertain that the OP meant "thrown") bat didn't hinder the catcher? It knocked the ball a couple of feet farther away from the catcher, who then had to rush his throw as a result. Perhaps there needs to be intent, but from subsequent info provided, it appears that this coach has his players intentionally interfere on a regular basis, so there's a good possibility that the hindrance of the catcher was intentional.

[Umpmazza]

this is a classic HTBT play.. if the umpire judged the batter threw it down with intent to hit the bat, then he is out... but if not intentional, batter runner is safe until he is put out.

[BretMan]

Rule 7 applies to a batter.

Rule 8 applies to a batter-runner.

Since this play involved a batter-runner, any rule or ruling you want to hang your hat on should come from section 8 of the rule book.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

this is a classic HTBT play.. if the umpire judged the batter threw it down with intent to hit the bat, then he is out... but if not intentional, batter runner is safe until he is put out.

Impossible!

[RPatrino]

The batter drops bat and the ball rolls into it, I have nothing. The batter throws the bat and hits the ball, in flight or on the ground, I have interference.

[DG]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you figure that the "discarded" (i.e., THROWN, as I've never seen a batter gently lay his bat down to "discard" it, and I can safely ascertain that the OP meant "thrown") bat didn't hinder the catcher? It knocked the ball a couple of feet farther away from the catcher, who then had to rush his throw as a result. Perhaps there needs to be intent, but from subsequent info provided, it appears that this coach has his players intentionally interfere on a regular basis, so there's a good possibility that the hindrance of the catcher was intentional.

You read between the lines too much. Discarded does not mean thrown. The op did not say catcher had a problem or rushed his throw. Subsequent info was not in evidence for the original op, or the ump who had to rule. PU must rule on what he saw, not what he found out later. If he saw it as intentional then INT. If the discard contact was not intentional in his view, then no INT. If you do not factor intent you penalize offense for defensive mistake, remember wild pitch.

I have seen a lot of discarded bats after a 3rd strike swing at a pitch in the dirt that were not thrown at a loose wild pitch.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

You read between the lines too much. Discarded does not mean thrown. The op did not say catcher had a problem or rushed his throw. Subsequent info was not in evidence for the original op, or the ump who had to rule. PU must rule on what he saw, not what he found out later. If he saw it as intentional then INT. If the discard contact was not intentional in his view, then no INT. If you do not factor intent you penalize offense for defensive mistake, remember wild pitch.

I have seen a lot of discarded bats after a 3rd strike swing at a pitch in the dirt that were not thrown at a loose wild pitch.

There is a strong probability that it was intentional. Even though the evidence was not in place in the OP, the coach was notorious for teaching his batters to intentionally interfere. That's what I was basing it on. If the PU judges the intent, then it would be INT. Let's put it this way: Had I been the umpire, and thought for one second that the batter-runner interfered intentionally, I would have called INT.

[DG]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

There is a strong probability that it was intentional. Even though the evidence was not in place in the OP, the coach was notorious for teaching his batters to intentionally interfere. That's what I was basing it on. If the PU judges the intent, then it would be INT. Let's put it this way: Had I been the umpire, and thought for one second that the batter-runner interfered intentionally, I would have called INT.

I would have also, if for one second thought it was intentional. But the Op gave no indication.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Highest Quality

Oh my, I have hundreds of times.

Did the batter bend over to remove his lower leg guard?

[RPatrino]

Which specific batter? You are kidding right?