Batter throws bat

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Please don't.

Intentionally throwing a bat is quite the opposite from carelessly throwing a bat. If he's trying to hit the ball (your call), then he's trying to hit the ball - and doing nothing illegal (and certainly not careless). Warning someone for doing something they are allowed to do is completely inappropriate.

If he hits the catcher, well, as they say, sometimes you just have to umpire. If he's legitimately trying to hit the ball (again ... in MY opinion), then I've got nothing but a strike. If he's trying to make things messy for the catcher, that's a completely different thing.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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 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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

[Rich Ives]

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