Hunter Pence.. broken bat
 

Pence's odd double lifts Giants, confounds Cards | SFGiants.com: News

How many people will mis-undertand the rule on this?

Look at slo-mo at 40 second mark.

I would guess very few.

Probably about as many people that actually saw it in real time motion............................................ ....................0

In what fashion?

When I saw the play in the game last night, I was waiting for Buck or McCarver to bring up something about the legality of the hit. I was sure McCarver would come up with something way out in left field.

But purely for discussion purposes, what would you have if you were able to discern that the ball was hit more than once on the initial swing? Would you really call an out? Or would you call Foul? Or would you just say "Play On"?

This play is unique in that the bat broke, and that's why there was multiple contacts with the ball (physics wouldn't allow this to happen with an unbroken bat). The batter was still in the box with the bat (or at least part of it) in his hands when it happened, so an out can't really be ruled. It would be similar to a double-hit on a bunt where the ball bounces off the plate and hits the bat again.

I dunno. This probably requires an interpretation in the MLBUM, kinda like the one they put in there after Randy Johnson hit a dove with a pitch. :p

I've not seen video ... but when the ball hits the bat the 2nd and 3rd time, is the part of the bat it hit still "part of the bat"?

Again,
 

Manny you really need to be more in the loop.

There was no interpretation necessary as what happen was all legal by rule.

T

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.

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

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... :D

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).

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.

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."

Really, Tim. Manny was joshing. Note the emoticon.

He is, and always has been, "in the loop".

Rita:rolleyes:

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.