Detached equipment (OBR)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The reason I ask is because I was having a discussion with another umpire who pointed out that rule 7.04(e), unlike all the other detached equipment rules, does not require an instantly dead ball. It also says that it does not apply to the batter.

7.04(e) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.

So, in his opinion, since the ball is not dead, and the batter is not awarded any bases, the catcher would need to throw out the batter. Any other runners would be awarded at least one base.

I disagreed because I said that there is no batter in this scenario. Because it was an uncaught third strike, there is no batter. The batter has become a batter-runner, who is a runner, not a batter. Therefore, the provisions of 7.04(e) would apply and the "batter" would be awarded 1-base.

The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue. But the reason it's there is so that we don't put batters on first base when someone hits the ball with detached equipment on a passed ball or wild throw on stolen base, etc. A NON-batted ball.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue. But the reason it's there is so that we don't put batters on first base when someone hits the ball with detached equipment on a passed ball or wild throw on stolen base, etc. A NON-batted ball.

Of course, a dropped third strike isn't batted either...

Rita

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue.

I suspect it confuses only those who don't understand the distinction between a batter and a batter-runner. David Emerling's interlocutor, for instance.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I suspect it confuses only those who don't understand the distinction between a batter and a batter-runner. David Emerling's interlocutor, for instance.

Yes, but just saying RUNNER was good enough. It's like saying... All vegetables, other than tomatoes, come from the leaf, stem, or root of the plant.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, but just saying RUNNER was good enough. It's like saying... All vegetables, other than tomatoes, come from the leaf, stem, or root of the plant.

Well that isn't correct either.

Rita

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Well that isn't correct either.

Rita

Actually, I see his point. "All runners, other than the batter..." is misleading because the batter is NOT a runner.

"All vegetables, other than tomatoes..." has the same problem, kinda. The only tiny quibble is that the term 'vegetables' is not botanically on a par with 'fruits', but that's the tiniest of nits.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Actually, I see his point. "All runners, other than the batter..." is misleading because the batter is NOT a runner.

"All vegetables, other than tomatoes..." has the same problem, kinda. The only tiny quibble is that the term 'vegetables' is not botanically on a par with 'fruits', but that's the tiniest of nits.

It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence (and analogy) doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Rita C

It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence and analogy doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita

From my high school biology teacher: if there's a seed, it's a fruit. It doesn't have to be edible. That "helicopter business" (he was referring to maple tree seeds, for example), --> fruit.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rita C

It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence (and analogy) doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita

Apologies for hijacking. A fruit is a botanical, not merely a customs, category. Vegetable is not.

Not sure where you got your info, Rita.