Batter throws bat

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Rich was referring to THIS scenario.

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

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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

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?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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

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.)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.)

Rich said: "There is NO LEGAL WAY you can punish a batter for making a legitimate attempt to hit a pitch." I disagreed with that general statement and cited 6.05(h) Comment (which, with respect to the part about a whole bat being thrown, does not require a batted ball).

BTW: I have a great deal of respect for Rich and his knowledge and understanding of the rules. We have butted heads before, and he has consistently supported his views with rule cites and cogent arguments, rather than resorting to personal attacks by cutting, pasting and reposting childish gibberish.

[Tim C]

As a co-author of the NFHS original Malicious Contact rule there are only two reasons for MC to be called:

1) Was the force of collision made to injure another player and,

2) Was the force of the collision made to detach the ball from the defenders legal grasp?

Not that hard.

T

[Tim C]

What I meant is what I wrote.

MC is solely directed to ball, runner, fielder. Your example of a run down (and I am assuming that you are talking about a runner and fielder without a ball present) originally would have been an ejection for unsportsmanlike behavior and NOT malicious contact.

T