I am a manager of a team. We play Major (American) League Rules. My hitter had a 2 - 2 count with 2 outs and runners on 1st & 3rd. By batter hits a line drive to LF for a base hit. My better, on his back swing, dropped the bat and hit the plate umpires leg. He yells "Dead ball, Batter is out for hitting me with the bat." He stated to me that he has a personal rule that if he gets hit with the bat he is out. I of course protest the game. Will I win this protest? I never heard of any rule where the umpire can call a batter out for getting hit with a bat or a rule where the umpire can use his own personal rules. There was no warning, and it wasn't on purpose. The bat didn't hit him hard or anything.

How old?
 

How old are these kids? That could make a difference.

Re: How old?
 

Better Question how old is the Umpire?

This is an adult league, using major league rules. the umpire is also an adult.

I would protest for sure

Anything can happen
 

You should win the protest. However, with protest committees in bush leagues, anything can and does happen. Things that should not factor into their ruling might play a big part; such as the number and quality of umpires available for the league. They may rule in favor of the umpire to in order to maintain good relations with the umpires.

An action in this situation by the umpire which cannot be protested would have been for the umpire to call time when the play was over and eject the player from the game. The ejected player is replaced on base with someone from the bench. This is an unusual ruling but it would not be protestable.

CoachandBlue,

"He yells "Dead ball, Batter is out for hitting me with the bat." He stated to me that he has a personal rule that if he gets hit with the bat he is out."

Wow, I didn't know we as umpires could have personal rule/s....if you followed the correct protest procedures you should win this one.

Who know what else this Blue may have for personal rules?

Michael

I woul say there is a good chance of winning the protest, and even a better chance of not having that guy doing your league.

I assign officials for Legion Ball and I promise you this official would be moved down.

oops, I thought this was Legion ball.

The first question the protest committee should ask themselves is whether or not a rule call was under protest. Clearly, this was a rules call.

The second question the protest committee should ask themselves is, "Did the incorrect application of the rule have a direct impact on the outcome of the contest?"

If the answer to both questions is, "Yes," then the protest committee should uphold the protest. If either one of them can be answered, "No," then the protest should be denied.

That's the way it should work, anyhow.

9.01 (c) at least leaves the door open.

Agreed but many poor umpires make doors when there are no doorways. I once as a coach had an umpire say when a ball rolls into DBT it's 2 but the home team hit one there and he awarded 3 saying there was no chance to stop him at two and that under 9.01 (C) there is no rule by which states that a ground rule double should result when the runner has already passed 2nd. I flipped upon hearing this

9.01c should be eliminated, or greatly modified, from the rule book. It has become a crutch for every dumb umpire who doesn't know what rule(s) to apply to a situation. I read on this, and other forums, about the outrageous uses of that rule.

Bob

The stupid thing is every time an umpire uses this rule protest committees seem impressed

In the entire history of baseball (at least at the MLB level), you can count on one hand how many times 9.01(c) has been invoked.

As with many professions, ours (umpiring) is rampant with many who try to impose their poor; and ill-thought judgements on others. Rudementary reading and studying of the rules and interpretations is certainly preferable to the BS that some of our own try to perpetuate.

As is also true in our profession . . . there will be those of us that truly understand and know the rules; and there will be those "arm-chair lawyers" and without-a-clue "wannabees" that THINK they know the rules.

One can either "guess" at a ruling. Or "know" a ruling.

I prefer to be with the latter.

Jerry