Fed Case Book contradiction?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've heard some try an explanattion similar to Dash's to try to reconcile the two cases. I don't buy it.

I agree with you in how it should be called, and think that the case which says otherwise is wrong (either a wrong ruling or it's missing some information).

Another way to look at it:

It is clear that a bat lying stationary on the ground is considered part of the playing field - i.e., it is irrelevant to fair/foul status (unless the bat is somehow beyond 1st or 3rd base). It is also clear that a bat in the hands of the batter is not part of the playing field.

So the question is: When the bat is dropped (leaves the batter's hands), when does it become part of the playing field? If the answer is "when it stops moving," then the explanation I presented in post #7 is correct.

Unless I missed something.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Another way to look at it:

It is clear that a bat lying stationary on the ground is considered part of the playing field - i.e., it is irrelevant to fair/foul status (unless the bat is somehow beyond 1st or 3rd base). It is also clear that a bat in the hands of the batter is not part of the playing field.

So the question is: When the bat is dropped (leaves the batter's hands), when does it become part of the playing field? If the answer is "when it stops moving," then the explanation I presented in post #7 is correct.

Unless I missed something.

I like it.