Hunter Pence.. broken bat

[Rich Ives]

Isn't it already answered?

Rule 6.05(h) Comment: If a bat breaks (yes) and part of it is in fair territory (yes) and is hit by a batted ball (yes) or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If batted ball hits part of a broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball.

[DUNDALKCHOPPER]

It was a good no call and I bet the Ump didn't even hear it tap twice.

[ozzy6900]

So it seem that several people do not know or understand 6.05(h) (thank you Rich)! There is not need for this to be in the MLBUM as it is plain as day in the rules.

Also, if it weren't for the slo-mo, no one would have known that the bat struck the ball more than once. I am will in to bet that you would see a lot of weird things if we saw an entire game via slo-mo (bat hitting ball).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Isn't it already answered?

Rule 6.05(h) Comment: If a bat breaks (yes) and part of it is in fair territory (yes) and is hit by a batted ball (yes)...

Ummm, not really. The ball didn't hit the bat. Rather, the bat hit the ball.

Yes, I know I'm teetering on the edge of sillyness. But things are slow right now...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Ummm, not really. The ball didn't hit the bat. Rather, the bat hit the ball.

Yes, I know I'm teetering on the edge of sillyness. But things are slow right now...

I'm not trolling or trying to be difficult here, but Manny has a point.

Forget the OP for a second and consider the rules about a ball striking a discarded bat or vice versa... we treat one one way (ball strikes discarded bat = play on) and one another way (discarded bat strikes ball = out) a completely different way.

The rule Rich quotes and Ozzy refers too seems to be written to cover the case where a bat breaks, and a detached part of the bat hits a fielder or IS HIT BY the ball, we play on. I don't think this, at all, implies the same ruling if the ball hits the bat.

I see the OP far more analogous to a ball that is hit, hits the ground and comes back up to hit the bat again.

Not saying that either A) the call on the field was wrong or B) the umps should have seen the double-hit. I just don't see the rule you're discussing as applying to this scenario.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm not trolling or trying to be difficult here, but Manny has a point.

Forget the OP for a second and consider the rules about a ball striking a discarded bat or vice versa... we treat one one way (ball strikes discarded bat = play on) and one another way (discarded bat strikes ball = out) a completely different way.

The rule Rich quotes and Ozzy refers too seems to be written to cover the case where a bat breaks, and a detached part of the bat hits a fielder or IS HIT BY the ball, we play on. I don't think this, at all, implies the same ruling if the ball hits the bat.

I see the OP far more analogous to a ball that is hit, hits the ground and comes back up to hit the bat again.

Not saying that either A) the call on the field was wrong or B) the umps should have seen the double-hit. I just don't see the rule you're discussing as applying to this scenario.

After the bat breaks/shatters, does the batter have any control of where the pieces go other than what is left in his hands? Think about it.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

After the bat breaks/shatters, does the batter have any control of where the pieces go other than what is left in his hands? Think about it.

I'm not debating that the wrong call was made. I'm only bringing out the fact that the rule, as written, doesn't quite cover the situation.

Yeah, I'm splitting hairs. Here ya go:

"Rule 6.05(h) Comment: If a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits the ball, a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If batted ball hits part of a broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

After the bat breaks/shatters, does the batter have any control of where the pieces go other than what is left in his hands? Think about it.

Generally no, he doesn't - but that doesn't make the above rule fit the situation.

Also, in the OP, at the point the ball hit the bat, it was not shattered so much as just broken - and batters forward arm movement DID keep that broken piece moving forward. Not sure that applies at all, but he did have SOME control.

I'm not arguing the logic of the call, really... I'm just saying that the rule quoted by Rich and referred to by Oz is not the rule that applies.

[Tim C]

Soon the "what ifs" will start.

T

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Soon the "what ifs" will start.

As I'm sure they did when "The Big Unit" nailed that poor bird...

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Soon the "what ifs" will start.

T

What if we just watched the games and not have to scrutinize every facet of every play and call. Kind of like the game was supposed to be enjoyed. No replays, no slo-mo, just sit back and enjoy a day at the park.

[dileonardoja]

Even though our eys don't really work in frames you could say at best the human eye can only detect 200 frames/second. This was filmed at 3000 fps. Thus the double hit would be impossible to visually detect and unlikely to be audible among the sounds of the initial hit of the bat the bat shattering. So in essence you don't need a rule because it is humanly impossible to discern this from any other broken bat batted ball.

The rule is written to deal with part of the bat that separates from the handle. In which case when both are still moving, it is a matter of perspective to say which hit the other.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

Even though our eys don't really work in frames you could say at best the human eye can only detect 200 frames/second.

Point of fact... Depending on what you're measuring, it's more like 10-15 frames per second. If you could see 200 frames per second individually, you would detect flicker in even the highest quality movies.

[Dave Reed]

C'mon guys,
Rule 6.05(h) is not meant to cover this situation. The rules of baseball aren't written or intended to be used where a camera taking a few thousand frames per second would be required to get the correct ruling.

Also, 6.05(h) requires that the batted ball be called foul if the bat hits the broken bat in foul territory. Yet, many batters are back in the box, and contact between ball and bat in foul territory occurs frequently. Is anyone here seriously advocating that a foul ball should have been called in this case if the contact with the broken bat was in foul territory? But that is what reliance on 6.05(h) would require.

It's simple. The batter made a normal swing and the ball was hit fair. It's a fair batted ball, and there is no reason to call the batter out. Trying to justify this obviously correct ruling by invoking 6.05(h) invites a wrong ruling.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The rule Rich quotes and Ozzy refers too seems to be written to cover the case where a bat breaks, and a detached part of the bat hits a fielder or IS HIT BY the ball, we play on. I don't think this, at all, implies the same ruling if the ball hits the bat.

.

If you're going to nit-pick it to that level then judge that because the ball was moving therefore it hit the bat.

The rule is there to punish the batter for hitting the ball a second time. As the batter has ZERO control over the broken off piece of the bat he could not no way no how possibly in any manner ever hit the ball a second time so he can't be guilty of anything about the incident.

Give it a rest and move on.