Ignore or not
 

FED. Batter swings at strike three in the dirt. As F2 is reaching down to pick up the ball, the now discarded bat hits the ball and knocks it a couple of feet away. F2 shifts and retrieves the ball and makes a wild throw past first. What should I have done on this play?:confused:

be ready to cover third.....

Why? There won't be any runners arriving there.

If the batter throws his bat and hits the ball, he has interfered with the catcher's attempt to field the ball. That is Interference, and the batter is out. Runners return to their TOP bases. Rule 7-3-6 and PENALTY.

And why would the PU have any play at third in this situation even without Interference? He would have the ball down the line and the BU would have the bases, hence the term Base Umpire.

Good Coaching?
 

After the inning the coach of the batting team told me that he teaches his players to casually drop the bat in the direction of the ball. He said that the bat often either hits the ball or hinders the F2 and that they never get called for interference.

Later in the same game, the same batter hit a ball down the left field line. I was tracking the ball, but found out later (from an evaluator in the stands) that the batter flung his bat toward the catcher as he left for first base. The catcher seemed to be a little shook up, but nobody ever brought it to my attention. The evaluator said it was obvious to him that it was intentional, but that I was doing the correct thing by looking at the ball as it went into left field.

The coach is a cheating rat, and the umpires who don't call Interference when the fielder is hindered are not doing their jobs properly.

Steve, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for re-affirming my belief in basic common sense.

Steve,

You're the master of redundancy.:)

Steve,

Wrong rule.

The proper rule is 8-4-1a, and the batter is only out if the umpire judges that he intentionally hit the ball with his discarded bat.

JM

8-4-1a makes no mention of a discarded bat. It only deals with the batter-runner intentionally interfering with the catcher on a 3rd strike. 7-3-6 references a thrown bat directly and states that if a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player (read: catcher) attempting a play, interference will be called.

And in addition, the OP was further clarified by stating that the coach directed his players to intentionally interfere with the catcher by throwing the bat at the ball, so it was very likely an intentional act by the batter.

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

http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/q...ind_umpire.jpg

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.

tballump,

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

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

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.

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.