Throwing a bat at a pitch in order to hit it does not make the batter immune from INT.

I agree with your second paragraph - but I disagree that that's what I'm doing. I do not agree that trying to hit a pitch and carelessly releasing a bat are mutually exclusive, nor do the rules make that distinction. Depends how that batter purposefully tosses that bat to make contact. I'm saying that act could be careless. Not necessarily would, but certainly could be. That meets the spirit AND letter of the rules.

It does if his intent is to hit the pitch. There is NO LEGAL WAY you can punish a batter for making a legitimate attempt to hit a pitch.

That's why the follow-through interference is basically just a reset - no outs.

Carelessly is not the same as unintentionally or the same as illegally. You could intentionally release the bat in an effort to hit the pitch but do so carelessly and hit the catcher instead.

If you're going to throw the bat at the ball, it should be at the ball and away from the catcher (or really where the catcher should reasonable be expected to be).

If it's thrown carelessly, even if it's a legal attempt to hit the ball, I don't see why you wouldn't issue the warning the same way you would when the player releases the bat on the follow through and sends it flying.

6.05(h) Comment "... If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not..."

I said this the other day, I'll say it again.

Some disagreements on here, or debates, are the result of people with opposing understandings of something trying to talk through the situation and resolve it, in order to make us better umpires.

Other debates or debaters come from people just saying whatever they can to "win" the argument. This sort of thing serves no purpose, and doesn't make anyone better.

Your response, here, is the latter. Rich was referring to THIS scenario. Your "rebuttal" (using the term incredibly loosely) has nothing at all to do with this scenario (unless, I guess, you're allowing the catcher to set up in fair territory, or are imagining a scenario where the batter tosses the bat to hit a pitch out... hits it... and somehow defying physics the bat propels itself into fair territory to interfere with someone trying to field that hit.)

His statement was general. It might mislead others. It is incorrect as a general statement.

Why warn him? What, by rule, did he do wrong?

There's a reasonable expectation that the batter should hold onto his bat after swinging at a pitch near the strike zone. And there's certainly an expectation that he should hold onto it after making contact with the pitch. When he doesn't, the bat usually goes propellering into the backstop or, worse, against the catcher or umpire. That is clearly careless.

But when a batter actually tosses his bat on a pitch-out, how is that supposed to be careless? He's making a bonafide attempt to contact the ball! And the bat doesn't go flying into the dugout or over the fence. It just ends up maybe a few feet beyond the dirt circle. It might not be the smartest thing to do in terms of successfully batting the ball, but it's not careless. And it's something I certainly shouldn't be warning the batter about.

You have to be kidding.

This is after the ball has been hit. It's not the attempt to hit the ball.

My post was CLEARLY about an attempt to hit the pitch.

"It does if his intent is to hit the pitch. There is NO LEGAL WAY you can punish a batter for making a legitimate attempt to hit a pitch."

How can that be classified as being in general?

If he throws the bat after a legitimate swing and it interferes with a fielder making a play in fair territory it is interference.

I'm not saying that it's inherently careless to throw the bat at the pitch in an effort to hit it. Your description would be an instance of were it clearly wasn't careless. On the other hand, if the bat does go flying into the dugout or goes backwards into where the catcher can legally, and reasonably expected to, be, his legitimate attempt to hit the ball does not excuse the careless throwing of the bat.

Some disagreements on here, or debates, are the result of people with opposing understandings of something trying to talk through the situation and resolve it, in order to make us better umpires.

Other debates or debaters come from people just saying whatever they can to "win" the argument. This sort of thing serves no purpose, and doesn't make anyone better.

Your response, here, is the latter. Rich was referring to THIS scenario. Your "rebuttal" (using the term incredibly loosely) has nothing at all to do with this scenario (unless, I guess, you're allowing the catcher to set up in fair territory, or are imagining a scenario where the batter tosses the bat to hit a pitch out... hits it... and somehow defying physics the bat propels itself into fair territory to interfere with someone trying to field that hit.)

Not quite sure how the location of where the bat ends up, has anything to do with the determination of whether a bat was "carelessly" thrown or not. Why are we insistent on saying that things that are not specifically covered by the Rules, are therefore wrong or illegal. As officials we need to stick to enforcement of the rules as they exist and are interpreted. Making it up, just causes problems.

Eg: I am doing a game the other day and R3 is coming home and does not slide. The catcher is on 1B side of plate and receives a low throw from right side of field. Reaches over and tags R3 around the ankle, causing him to flip/trip over the catcher. Two players, playing within the rules and just not executing the plays normal with good baseball techniques. My partner ejects R3 for malicious contact. The coaches question the call. I am not asked to get involved and don't.

It is obvious that it looked malicious to my partner and he made the call but, I don't believe his interpretation of the rules were consistent with "malicious contact" and therefore because something unusual happened, he felt he had to react with a ruling, that I believe was incorrect.

Sometimes you just have to umpire.

So many umpires don't understand that malicious and violent are two different things. Malicious means "with malice". Your partner needs a dictionary.