I'm struggling to envision how you could even do this and hit the catcher, but it seems that if done, it very easily could be done in a careless manner. I guess depending on where the catcher was it could be a legitimate and legal attempt to hit. Somewhat HTBT. But if the batter just flings the bat on a prayer and whacks a catcher who's not all that close? Yea, I think it's pretty careless.

It would be extremely unusual - but I'm not sure out of my mind applies. If catcher moves forward to catch this pitch out and gets in the way of the bat - and I truly believe the bat-throw was an attempt to hit the pitch ... why wouldn't CO apply? (I grant you that if the catcher merely moved sideways and the thrown bat went somewhat backward, I'd be hard pressed to "truly believe" it was an attempt to hit the pitch.)

You are confusing the simple word careless and the rulebook use of careless.

Let me say it this way. If the batter intentionally throws the bat - we have nothing careless in either direction. And if said bat hits the catcher, you'd better be calling either interference on the batter (for throwing the bat intentionally and interfering with a play) or obstruction on the catcher (for getting in the way of an attempt to hit the ball). If the bat-throw is intentional --- you'd better have one or the other.

Careless, in the rulebook, it intended to include cases where the batter unintentionally or negligently let the bat go.

I'm not, because that would be pretty obvious to see, IMO.

I'm talking about a batter who is trying to protect a runner on a steal, and the pitcher throws a pitch-out to the catcher. Most catchers simply move to the side to receive the pitch, so they shouldn't put themselves in the path of the bat if the batter tries to make contact with the pitch-out.

But I agree with Rich. The catcher who moves to the side and then up on the pitch-out (assuming he's that fast) would be liable for CI (or CO in FED) because he's taking away a legitimate attempt to strike at the ball.

You are making an argument for throwing the bat at the catcher on every pitch-out.

Not really. A great actor might succeed in this once, and as I said, if the catcher only moved sideways (and not up) I'd be unlikely to believe that this was an attempt to hit the ball. But say they do it... and then later do it again - doubt as to whether this was actually an attempt to hit the ball would be vastly increased.

I hear what you're saying but still think that it could still apply even by the rulebook use (which isn't explicitly defined either). Attempting to hit a pitch with a thrown bat that hits someone (assuming it's not CI), while not unintentional, could be reasonably argued to be negligent IMO. If it's interference with a play, that's the better and more straightforward call, but if there was no play and hence no interference, it could still be careless. Or malicious, if he actually targeted the catcher, but that's a different story.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never ever said it was legal for the batter to throw his bat at the catcher. I said it was legal for the batter to attempt to hit any pitch, even if he has to toss his bat at the ball. There is nothing written anywhere that says a batter cannot attempt to hit pitch-outs.

Besides, if the catcher only moved sideways for the pitch-out as they normally do, it would be an easy call if the batter threw his bat and hit him--batter's interference all the way. That is probably why catchers move that way to begin with.

Using your logic, a runner who takes out a pivot man on the DP by sliding into him while still being able to reach the base with his hand would be negligent. But guess what? It is perfectly legal.

There is no rule (in OBR) that requires the runner to slide directly into the base, just like there is no rule that requires the batter to maintain control of his bat to hit the ball. His chances of contacting the ball with a released bat makes the tactic unwise, but not negligent.

Well, there is in FED, in both cases. I'd say 95% of my games are FED, so that's my default. And I'm not saying just throwing the bat is automatically careless, but if it hits the catcher I can easily see how it could be careless and negligent. It also might not be, but I'm not about to say it can't be.

Throwing the bat with a purpose - any purpose - is the complete opposite to throwing it carelessly. If he threw the bat on purpose - and it hits the catcher - you either have BI or CO. Period. In the case of BI, you might possibly also have something worse.

Another case of "This is stupid and/or I don't like it. I'm going to find a reason to punish it".

Not at all, this is a clear and present safety issue. Careless does NOT solely mean unintentional...at least not to me. I respect the other opinions but I disagree.

I think it's just as stupid to punish the catcher for getting hit with a thrown bat. If he's in front of the plate, well that's something completely different.

You have to see it to remedy it, if a remedy is needed at all.

Perhaps. But our opinions are based upon the rules as written, and there is nothing in those rules that prohibits a batter from attempting to hit a pitched ball with his bat, no matter where it goes. Some rule sets address carelessly released bats, which happens after the batter hits or misses the pitch, and results in bats flying out of control in any direction. That's not what happens when a batter purposefully tosses his bat towards a pitch in order to make contact.

You really have to be careful when you put safety above the written rules. The game is inherently unsafe to begin with. Umpires who start coming up with rulings based upon safety, such as requiring a pitcher to be removed from the mound after hitting so many batters, set themselves up for problems.