"Slinging the bat"
 

NFHS Is there any rule anywhere that states if the batter slings the bat and it hits the catcher, a team warning is issued? If so, if it happens a second time what happens?

Here is the situation I witnessed last week: In the third inning a batter slung his bat and the bat hit the catcher. The plate umpire came out after the play and told the coach he was issuing a warning to his team. The coach said ok.

Later in the game, another batter (same team) slung his bat and hit the catcher. After the play, the umpire called him out and returned all runners to their bases they occupied at the time of the pitch.

I had never heard of this, so when I got an opportunity I asked the coach of the team why the batter was out. He said for "slinging the bat". I asked him was this a "local rule" of this HS association. He said "no, it's a baseball rule". I thanked him went back to my seat.

Yesterday I saw the umpire at a coach pitch game. I asked him about the play. He said he would have ejected the second batter had it been his second time. I asked him was this a special rule of the HS association. He said it was a NFHS rule.

Let me say this, at no time did I argue with the coach or umpire. I have umpired many HS games. I just have never heard or read this rule.

Can anyone tell me where this rule is located in the book?

Thanks

I don't know of it being in the rule book. I would not have anything to rule unless I judge the act to be intentional. Then I would be issuing warning or ejecting based on general sportsmanship guidelines.

3-3-1c

Right. The penalty is warn, then eject the next offender at the end of play. The umpire in Mike's case did not handle it correctly, but treated it as interference.

Might have confused it with 7-3-6, which treats a thrown bat as INT only when the bat interferes with a fielder making a play. Not this case.

Cool. I guess that means I gotta judge if he is careless too.

Maybe you should take the time to read something more than just the exciting chapters of the rule book. :)

Lot of umpires refuse to make this call, some refuse to make the call unless there is a play involved (e.g. throw on R1 to 2b); others only call it if the bat hits them. :p

They refuse to make the call because calling a runner out is incorrect (unless there is interference) and is a protestable call. Eject the offender. Play on!

I just worked with a guy who told me he called a batter out (under FED) because he was wearing jewelery after being warned earlier. Again...WRONG call! Eject is the prescribed penalty.

"because calling a runner out is incorrect"

So do you replace the runner who is ejected at the end of the play since you say calling him out is inncorrect? So next question is what do you do with any other runners who advanced?

As with (almost) all ejections: Replace the EJ player with a sub (if he's on base or on defense), the rest of the play stands.

(The "almost" is for those situations where the penalty is "out" and "out.")

Is the penalty the same in OBR, or just in FED? :confused:

I have read all the rules. My only question is whether or not the batter is out. That is what I am asking.

Mike,

For "slinging the bat", in and of itself, the penalty is NOT an out. Under FED rules, as others have already stated, it's a team warning followed by an ejection for the player of that team who next commits the offense.

If his throwing of the bat actually interferes with a play or attempted play by the defense, then an out would be a proper call.

cb33,

There is no equivalent to the "warn, then eject" penalty for "bat throwing" in OBR rules. However, if the thrown bat interferes with a play or attempted play, the batter would be out under OBR rules as well.

In either code, if the bat is thrown to express the player's displeasure with a call (as opposed to just being "careless"), it's an "automatic" eject.

JM

The rulebook will list every way a player can be called out. It will not list the way it was done in the OP.

If released bat strikes catcher, or me, it is careless, no judgement required.

I'm sorry but you ask a coach for a ruling? You stated that you are a HS umpire, you better get your nose into the rulebook and learn the rules. As an umpire, you are the authority on the field, you do not ask a coach about a rule, you tell the coach the rule!

Then you saw the umpire calling a coach-pitch game? Well, that explains everything!

Agreed, and will add that some youth leagues / programs have rules that address the situation, and may include out, ejection, or both, and warnings for each batter or for the team.

And thank God for that. Unfortunately, some umpires, while insisting on "getting it right" at all costs, get this rule wrong. All umpires SHOULD refuse to make this call... it's wrong.

Apparently you missed at least one rule. :)

Let me try and clear up my position.

I have umpired many HS games. I have been out of the HS loop for some time because of work constraints. I still try and keep up with rules because I love the game and plan to return to umpiring soon.
I have known this umpire and his family, they are good people, but have a penchant for coming up with rules on their own, or mis-applying a rule. This is not a bash of them, it is a fact.

I had never heard of a batter being out for "slinging the bat" so I thought perhaps it was some type of new rule this season. I would never approach an umpire as a spectator, that is why I asked the coach. He acted like it was a baseball rule.

Yes, I saw the umpire at a coach pitch game. He was coaching his son.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Lot of umpires refuse to make this call, some refuse to make the call unless there is a play involved (e.g. throw on R1 to 2b); others only call it if the bat hits them. :p
The careless slinging of the bat rule is, nonetheless, a rule. Whether or not you or any other umpire decides to apply the rule properly is their choice.

I have seen instances where catchers are put in the way of great personal harm from carelessly released bats. Especially those that wear skull caps and masks instead of helmets. Umpires too.

Typically, it is one or two hitters who have been releasing their bats after contact since peewee ball. It's time they grow up and be coached up on this dangerous practice. I will call this in a heartbeat if I see a consistent pattern of careless release and any umpire who decides to ignore this issue of safety needs to thoroughly rethink why he is out there. IMHO, of course. :D

Here's what you were replying to: Your reply:
Yes, there IS a rule (in some sets) about a carelessly thrown bat. However, the ruling you replied to is WRONG. Period. Umpires refusing to make THAT call are correct, in that THAT call is wrong. I do "decide to apply the rule properly." Meaning I do refuse to make the call you were replying to.

Carelessly discarding the bat is a FED rule. Skull caps are illegal for catchers in FED ball.

You are either applying a FED rule to other rule sets where it doesn't apply, or you are applying it in FED games while not enforcing the proper equipment rules for F2.

Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is a violation of UC in OBR.Neither.

Your reply:
Originally Posted by Simply The Best
Lot of umpires refuse to make this call, some refuse to make the call unless there is a play involved (e.g. throw on R1 to 2b); others only call it if the bat hits them.

Which part of "lot of umpires refuse to make the call" did you not understand considering you "refuse to make this call"? :confused: My post was nothing more than a simple comment about how umpires handle the sitch. Nowhere was I directing the comment at or about you, it was a general comment about umpires, keep your britches on. Sheesh. <eom></eom>

Reference, please.

Now, somebody is slinging something...

Can you offer a rule, interpretation or case play that supports this notion?

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is a violation of UC in OBR.
UC is judgment, interp is what I consider UC. Carelessly releasing a bat where injury and harm can occur is UC.

Next.

Should I ask what UC stands for, or does it matter, since I am not in sync with Simply on the subject?

That's what I figured you'd say, since that is the only possible thing upon which you could hang your hat. I sincerely doubt you will find any documented interpretation endorsing that ruling.

Next time we see a batter in a Major League game get fooled on a pitch, lose his grip on the bat and have the bat helicopter away from the plate in such a way that "injury and harm can occur", I guess we'll see that batter ejected.

Or maybe not.

Unsporting conduct.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with STB's interp on this issue. A2D.

9.01c & d cover Unsportsmanlike Conduct (UC) issues. I haven't seen a player 'sling' his bat after hitting a pitch in many years. Still, if it is an issue, the rules allow for you to penalize the act.

I have to admit being a bit confused why Bob tolerates belligerence from a select few here. The OP was asked by someone who wanted help but was met with condescension and outright antagonism. Some of you forget what it was like to start out or have a play that was beyond your grasp (even the pros admit that they are occassionally challenged by non-routine plays). The internet affords some insulation, especially when using a screen name. If you were teaching a clinic and an umpire asked such a question, would you ridicule that person face to face? That seems like rather 'unsportsmanlike conduct'.

The preponderance of sporting officials I see fall into the category of "easy way to the fee", i.e. that are not interested in using the rules to cover issues that aren't defined by some interp they can lay their lazy hats on. God forbid they protect a catcher from getting his clock cleaned by using UC which clearly allows for that use. God forbid they use their heads for something more than a place to strap their mask on. :eek:

No, easy peasy money and this forum is full of easy peasy types.Which is the very reason this forum has so few new posters. The word is out, plain and clear, the reputation is set in concrete and new posters typically get rung up by the forum Big Dogs and they take a hike. There are too many forums where the moderation is clear and even handed and don't have the reputation of one-sided, "in crowd" slanted moderation.It's forum talk and it's the second part of the awful reputation this place has.

I don't know about the baseball world, but in the football and wrestling world that I've worked in, the officials are there because they love the sport. I've yet to meet an official that is there for easy money. Indeed, most of us _lose_ money doing this. I don't know how many hours of PTO I use every fall to leave early to officiate a JV game or Jr High game. Or the Saturdays I lose officiating wrestling tournaments instead of spending it with my wife and daughter.

Usually when people aren't interested in using some rule, it is because they are afraid of conflict (don't want to argue with the coach) or because they don't really understand it. I don't think I've ever seen laziness as an excuse.

If you're not making up interpretations with no basis in the conventions, intent or accepted practices of your sport, then you are lazy and money-grubbing? Somehow, I'm really doubting that you are ignorant enough to actually believe that.

How does the UC rule "clearly" allow for this, when it makes no mention of it, there's no rule covering it and there is no official interpretation directing us to call it that way? Clear? As mud, maybe. Or, maybe, clear only in the mind of the person creating a ruling out of thin air.

I already cited the relevant rules for OBR. In Fed, 3-3-1c or m discusses bat throwing and pertinent penalties. I like what Florida says about Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
From the FHSAA: "7.2 UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
7.2.1 “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” Defined. A student who commits an act of malicious and hateful nature toward a contest official, an opponent or any other person attending an athletic contest shall be guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct. Such acts may include, but are not limited to, profanity, striking or threatening a contest official; physical contact with an opponent which is beyond the normal scope of competition; spitting on a contest official or opponent; directing gender, racial or ethnic slurs toward a contest official, an opponent or any other person attending an athletic contest; or other such acts deemed to be unacceptable conduct according to the principal of the member school the student attends or this Association."

I don't know if other states have taken this step but it would be interesting to read how they define it.

The NCAA has several misconduct rules as well. Besides acts against game personnel, they penalize acts that bring disrepute on the game.

So riddle me this, how does an accidental act get punished by a rule that is directed at "malicious and hateful" actions?

Mike,

I must be reading a different thread than you. I just wnet back and re-read the first page of this thread, and the OP was "met with" an opinion, a "dead-on" rule cite, followed by an explanation.

There was a "good natured ribbing" post, then a troll interjected w. some tangential comments designed to stir up argument. The OP than asked for further clarification and received it.

I'm not sure which part of that you consider "belligerent" (other than possibly the troll).

JM

It appears that the FHSAA did. The rule I noted is a step towards defining unsportsmanlike conduct for their baseball administrators and officials.

For the rest of us without such guidelines from their state association, you will find accidental bat throwing under the section dealing with Bench and Field Conduct. 3-3-1c states that after a warning any player on the team warned will be ejected for similar conduct. Under 3-3-1m any deliberate bat throwing will result in an immediate ejection. I wrote about these things earlier.

John,
I included specifics rules for OBR and Fed regarding bat tossing as well. I noticed several people who, rather than simply answer the OP's question decided to chide him for not knowing. They are there for you to read.

In an effort to move the discussion along, I posted what another High School association states about Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It seemed to be well constructed and appropriate.

Mike,

The thing that "cracks me up" about the FHSAA definition is that, while what they describe I would certainly consider "unsportsmanlike", MY threshold for "unsportsmanlike" is WAY below "hateful and malicious".

Heck, I've dumped a kid for "drawing a line" on me, though I considered it neither hateful nor malicious - just inappropriately disrespectful.

Plus, how the hell do I know what one or another HS principal deems an "unacceptable act"? Does it vary from a fundamentalist Christian school, to a parochial school, to a public school?

Profanity (G*d d@mn!) gets the hook, but obscenity (F#ck y*u!) and vulgarity (You're bull$hit!) don't?!?!?

I know, I'm just having a little fun with what they wrote. While I believe it "well intentioned", I am singularly unimpressed.

It's really what the UMPIRE judges an unacceptable act, informed by the criteria defined in the FED book.

JM

+1

I agree with most of what you wrote. I still think it is a valuable tool for new umpires though. Some here seem to have forgotten what it is like for rookies to confront a new play or behavior. For those new umpires, such definitions are as useful as the ubiquitous, 'make final decision on points not covered by the rules.'

The NCAA has similar guidelines but games governed by OBR are a puddle for many rookies because they lack such definitions. Experience usually gets you through the mire but the guidelines cited are helpful not perfect. According to Jim Evans and J/R, few things about our rule book are.

The supplements issued each year by the Fed and NCAA are often ignored by those who profess to 'know enough to get the job done' but forget that the purpose is provide clarity. The FHSAA tried. Maybe they didn't achieve what some of us would like but it must be good enough since they kept it verbatim for the next year.

As an aside, the Sox-Yankees game saw Ozzie look like a clown again. Tichenor rung up Konerko on a knee high strike. He nailed the call. Ozzie came out to chew on him and wound up looking ridiculous for arguing balls and strikes. If Tichenor had been back in Trips that 'conversation' would not have happened like it did. A lot of rookies watch things like that and believe they should emaluate them.

Mike,

To be fair, I must say there is one "diamond in the rough" from the FHSAA "definition" - to me, anyway.

It is:

That may be the best "definition" of malicious contact that I've ever read.

It's not going to be very "helpful" to a "new guy", because it offers no criteria by which to judge what IS "...beyond the normal scope of competition...".

But, that 's pretty much what I think the FED/NCAA MC rule IS.

JM

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
God forbid they protect a catcher from getting his clock cleaned by using UC which clearly allows for that use.
Good Lord, man, if you don't understand the absolute power of UC, then there is nothing I can do to assist you. :(

Originally, this definition did not have "but are not limited to" in it. I was out of country at the time but am told that phrase was a must to allow the complete discretion of sporting officials to rule on UC.

Thanks Coach.

I will point out that several posts were deleted in this thread well before the comments from Mike and STB. Maybe they read them before they were deleted.

And, we all have different thresholds for what should be allowed, and it's human nature to think our own actions are "more okay" than others. So, we react mopre when our own posts get deleted. :shrug:

Maybe that absolute power is corrupting you. You may have the right to do this, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

An overly-officious application of the absolute power of UC..."Hey, you, over there in the dugout! I don't like the way you're spitting those sunflower seeds all over the place. Somebody has to clean that up! Mighty unsporting of you to leave a mess like that on my field. You're ejected!".

Silly? Yes! But clearly within the scope of any rule that is both absolute and at the umpire's whim. It's not an example of any documented interpretation, or conventional practice, or a recommended way to handle this. And neither is an ejection for carelessly discarding a bat in an OBR game.

No Bob, you are wrong. I can still see posts from members who, rather than answer the question posed, take it upon themselves to insult the person seeking knowledge. You seem content to tolerate 'big dog' behavior and ridiculous baiting/condescension from some members here. That was what I spoke to. I have never once complained that a post I made was deleted or edited. I have requested consistency from you in handling those who have nothing to offer other than belittling. I have worked with you and know you would never tolerate a coach who behaved so poorly. Neither of us would want to work with a partner who insulted us at every turn. I expect all to comply with the rules.

Quote:

Bob Jenkins wrote: "We all have different thresholds for what should be allowed..."

Well, heck, there is what I have been saying all along.

I believe Bob is using his powers of forum moderation as a lesson to those who can't grasp the absolute powers that lie within UC.

Bob can determine what is or is not UC on TOF and apply no penalty, some penalty or severe penalty.

Same with UC on the field.

Any further questions regarding UC should be addressed to Bob Jenkins. :D

You seem to spend a lot of time trying to tell others how to write or what to say, or otherwise judge someone else's posts' appropriateness. And not a whole lot on the actual situation or on helping the discussion along. I believe 3 of your 20-something posts in this thread have even a morsel of constructive umpiring advise. You're becoming one of the worst offenders of that which you decry.

I only asked for professional demeanor. If a member asks for help and all you can do is insult him or her for not knowing the answer that is sad. I remind you that since my return to this forum, I have continuously tried to be pleasant and professional. If I post a rule interp or relate personal experience, I was met with comments like, "When you have a thousand posts you will be more believable." or "Get off your high horse." I can't imagine that any of you would have the courage to insult another umpire from your association for asking an honest question. Is it too much to ask for you to be civil?

I feel more like a regular... I think I got my first message deleted and I feel like a right of passage has been bestowed upon me.

I've lost track of how many posts I've had deleted. I get carried away sometimes.

Until a new "state clinician" showed up, I hadn't had a post deleted, much less had a "time out." I guess I got carried away as well. I'll have to go back to controlling that which I can control and not give a fudge about how weird the world can be.

I'm going to side with you on the post count issue, sort of. There are forum members with 200 posts whom I respect immensely. There are forum members with 10k posts whom I think are morons. More posts may help to determine whether someone is an idiot or not, but post count isn't in and of itself definitive.

As for the high horse comment; the initial one was made when you said complaints from coaches are virtually always the umpire's fault. That was deserved, IMO.

When I said it, however, it was gratuitous and I apologize.

I never wrote that complaints from coaches are virtually always the umpire's fault. I did note that if all an umpire sees are coaches who complain they may want to invest in some introspection. I have kicked calls and had coaches bite. I deserved the response but learned how to handle their actions. I can bite back too.

I appreciate the apology. It is accepted and I hope we can begin anew. This isn't my first rodeo and I have endured my share of lumps, just not from fellow umpires. Thank you for being civil.

Yes, only Bob is exempt from deletion.

Me too. Probably this one too.

If this place has an awful reputation for any reason, which I don't believe is the case, it is because of trolls and ne'er-do-wells that only like to come here and criticize and belittle other posters, and disagree with every logical post on the forum.

For instance, the sweeping, unfounded generalization about lazy umpires and easy peasy types, of whom and of which I am not familiar. I don't not know of anybody with whom I umpire, or any regular poster (the ones who are Simply Not Trolls) on this forum who would take the lazy way out on any calls. That would not be tolerated in this absolute blast furnace of baseball which is all of SoCal. We play a high caliber of ball out here, with umpires to match, higher than apparently you have been witnessing where you're at. We are required to know and enforce the rules for whatever set of rules are being used at the time. It's called umpiring.

You're right, but I was wrong about the precise comments that spurred the response. I'll say this, your comments in that particular thread came across to virtually everyone as condescending and overly presumptuous. You may not have felt that way or intended them that way, but that's how they were received (almost universally).

So, given your statement above, wouldn't that call for some introspection?

I work with a few guys who post here. Most of them laugh at how my posts are received. Some have told me to forget about changing the attitude around here and just accept the fact that people need to vent online because we have to be better than that on the field. A couple others have stated that if I want civil discourse I should try another site. I will keep trying to be professional with my posts and hope that my 'cynicism' may rub off on some. The internet eliminates tone and sincerity from most of our posts.

I hope you understand now that I do not pretend to be better than anyone else here. I am not a white hat wearing do gooder. Six plus years living in Asia humbled me and taught lessons about community. Umpires there conduct themselves with dignity and are actually revered. They are held accountable for their conduct away from the game. I respect that system. I know I am a better umpire for having lived that experience. I hope it makes me a better person too.

Thanks again for being civil. I see 17,851 posts and can see you enjoy the board. For what it's worth, I do too.

Wonderful... another id.

Advice from the peanut gallery... Ignore now? Or wait to make sure? Leaning toward the former.

I'm learning to just ignore the many colorful personalities of The Troll but I acknowledge how one could find him entertaining for a while.

FWIW: My vote is to ignore now. If it's not a troll, you'll know soon enough from others who quote it.