Last out of Halliday No-Hitter
 

Should the last play in the no-hitter have been an automatic out when the batter's dropped bat touched the batted ball?

The replay shows the ball rolling into the dropped bat.

Does baseball have a rule that if the bat rolls into the ball, the batter is out and it's a dead ball, but if the ball rolls into the bat, it's a live ball?

I saw nothing conclusive from the angles they had. If I would have had anything, it would have been ball rolling into bat, which is nothing, live ball. And yes, there are rulings concerning the two differences when ball and bat make contact in live ball territory. You are correct.

Congrats to Halladay.

"Doc" was really on his game today except for the two out walk to Jay Bruce.

OTOH, the Reds pitching wasn't too bad either as the Phillies only had five hits, and four of those came in the first two innings when they scored all their runs.

I wonder what Oswalt will have store for them next?

Ump TT is correct. Basically it would have to be an intentional throwing of the bat into the baseball.

Don't have the interp handy, but there is one.

Great job by Halladay.

However, those nitwit announcers were wrong when they said Don Larsen now has company. When Halladay pitches a perfect game in the world series, he will be in the company of Larsen.

Why do the Phils fans wave toilet paper all game? It's as annoying as a vuvuzela orchestra (but not as annoying as that stupid chop in Atlanta). Can't they just watch a baseball game?

6.04H has the answer to all the questions, in summary live ball unless umpire judgment rules intent to interfere on the contact.

Another issue on the play, as the batter runs up the line well inside the line I am thinking that if F2 plunks him with a throw from his knees we got a running lane violation and out of here with no-hitter intact. I also noted that U1 waited until every fan in the stadium was jumping for joy before making the obvious out call at 1B.

Great game by Halliday! Great game by J.H. with balls and strikes.

As a Phillies fan, I was giddy when I saw that Hirschbeck was on the plate. He's probably got the biggest side-to-side zone of any current umpire, and that plays right into Halladay's game.

1 down, 10 to go.

I think yesterday shows how far baseball has come in the last few years with the strike zone - Hirschbeck was laser sharp, consistant.....and actually gave strikes above the waist! :eek: And Halladay took full advantage of that.

I wasn't insinuating that Hirschbeck makes up strikes. I saw a plot of all of Halladay's pitches and only one called strike was outside the zone. I don't know which pitch, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the called third to Rolen in the middle of the game.

Difference between Hirschbeck and other umpires I see is that JH aggressively gets strikes. Few pitches early in the game where the pitcher missed his spot but the pitch caught the plate and even the announcers admitted that those pitches are, but are rarely called, strikes. I'm happy to see this. At the HS and even small college level I'm loathe to give up strikes just because the catcher looks bad. So I don't. It would be a positive outcome of all this pitch plotting if it meant more strikes because umpires didn't care about a pitcher hitting his spot, etc.

johnny & DG,

While I agree that UMPTT was correct and that 6.04(h) covers the situation, INTENT is not relevant to the ruling.

JM

Its actually 6.05h:
6.05 A batter is out when—
(h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play;

It does if there IS intent.

"If the batter-runner drops the bat and the ball rolls against the stationary bat in fair territory and, in the umpire's judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play, the same as if it had not hit the bat." MLBUM

Johnny's comment was different than mine so I stand by mine.

JM, you're a better writer than me so based on what I wrote, you might certainly interpret what I wrote differently...I'm okay with that. However, I'm missing where you feel that intent isn't part of the rule. Both the MLBUM interp posted by DG and the rule posted by umpjong both state intent as part of the rule. Help me understand what I'm missing?