Batter throws bat
 

The hit/bunt and run is on and the defense calls a pitch out. The pitch is so far outside the batter throws his bat to hit the ball to protect the runner. (A) Doesn't make contact with the ball. (B) Makes contact with the ball. Is it legal to throw your bat at the ball?

I am not aware of a rule that says it is legal however, I am also not aware of a rule that says it is illegal either.

If a battter swings at a pitch and the bat slips out of his hands, are they throwing the bat?

Unless you can prove :confused: that it was done maliciously and created an unsafe condition. Don't go there.

Yes, it is legal.

Throwing the bat in anger is wrong. Throwing it carelessly is wrong. Throwing it to distract a fielder is wrong.

Throwing it to try to hit the ball is completely legal, whether you make contact or not. Nothing wrong in this play.

Rule book reference
 

Any rule book reference or case book play? NFHS

Looking for a rulebook reference for something that is not against the rules is usually hopeless. There might be a caseplay, but I don't see one in the two books I have handy.

(And if you're wondering where there wouldn't be a rule that states this is legal ... is there a rule that says the pitcher may throw the ball such that it curves on it's way to the batter? Nope... cause it's legal. Generally - if something is not stated as illegal, it's legal.)

Sometimes you just have to umpire!

Agree. There is no requirement whatsoever in any rule book that the bat remain in the batter's hands in order to hit the ball. The only stipulation is that the batter cannot have one foot completely out of the batter's box and on the ground when contact between the ball and bat takes place. If contact takes place, then you would rule Fair or Foul. Otherwise, it's a Strike.

I think I would rule (A) strike and (B) depends on what the struck ball does.

As a follow-on, suppose on the pitch-out, the catcher moves out and up, and the batter tosses his bat to try and hit the ball. But he ends up hitting the catcher instead.

Do you have batter interference, or catcher interference/obstruction here?

I'd say you could certainly make a case for BI if it interferes with a play. At a minimum I would definitely issue a team warning for carelessly throwing a bat under 3.3.1 with the next offender ejected.

Now there's a new one - hitting the catcher with an intentionally thrown bat!

I think I'd have INT on the batter. You'd have to be out of your mind to call anything on the catcher.

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.

Int? On the batter? Really? Why?

It's a pitch. The batter has an irrevocable right to attempt to hit it as long as he/she remains in a legal hitting position. If the catcher gets in the way of the attempt it's CI/CO.

Any batter can easily club the catcher while remaining in the batter's box. I hope you're not calling CI on that.

This is something that is not contemplated by the rules. The closest thing I can find is 6.05(h) Comment (even if the catcher is hit in foul territory).

You could also call it weak INT - add a strike and return the runners.

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.

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.

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.

Your partner was wrong. That has little bearing on what were are talking about here as far as I can tell.

Fed 3-3-1c says "A . . . player . . . shall not carelessly throw a bat." "Penalty: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected . . ."

So this is covered by the rules. If you're arguing that a player who, in an attempt to hit the ball, throws the bat all the way to the fence has thrown the bat in a careful manner, then we disagree on what is careless.

We are not given a definition for carelessly throwing the bat, so if you judge that not to be careless, you can't technically be wrong, but I'd question your judgement in the matter.

ô!ô
 

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

The point of my example was not to point out whether my partner was wrong or not, because in his mind and interpretations he wasn't. But, had his understanding of the "Malicious" interpretation been better understood, he most likely would have made the correct call.

Which takes us back to one interpreting "carelessly throwing the bat".

I have seen a bat being thrown at a pitch and have never been able to differentiate if the batter lunged and then the bat slipped from his hands or if he purposely was throwing the bat. Which in my mind does not fit the rule you cited.

So in that case, because it does not fit the rule, and as you stated there is "not a given definition for carelessly throwing the bat", how can you judge that because it ended up next to the fence, it was "careless". And because YOU, have judged that interpretation to be the correct one, how are you any different than my partner was?

Which you have already stated as being "wrong". Thats my point.

I agree that it's unlikely to have been thrown carelessly if it's a case of slipping while lunging.

To quote you, "Sometimes you just have to umpire." But I'm astonished that you think throwing a bat 30+ ft to hit a pitch within 2 ft doesn't rise to the level of careless.

Because I'm applying an actual rule. He didn't.

You appear to be wrongly equating carelessly with unintentionally. You can be intentional and careless as well as unintentional and careless.

When you release the bat either intentionally or unintentionally in such a way that it poses a hazard to the safety of others, you have carelessly thrown the bat. You have thrown the bat without care to the safety of others.

Think of it this way: if the batter throws the bat into your shins on his follow through is it better or worse if he did it intentionally? My guess is you are going to warn the team for carelessly throwing the bat if it is unintentional but eject without warning if it was intentional.

Tim. did you mean "or"? There are times that MC can occur when a fielder doesn't have the ball, such as in a rundown.

ô!ô
 

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

No, in just about everycase of the bat coming back to my shins it has been because some inexperienced player has never been properly shown how to drop the bat after after hitting the ball. I am not giving warnings and ejections. I will call time, bring out the coach and the player and hopefully correct the situation right there. I very seldom work those level games anymore though.

Lets just say that I believe your judgement of "carelessly" is different than mine and leave it that we disagree. I have seen bats end up in the stands, almost at first and it really has never entered my mind that it was carelessly.

Have a good day!

fify

fixed it for yourself, perhaps, but certainly not everyone else's. I agree with Eastshire, who stated what I meant more eloquently than I did.

Since it was due to inexperience, it was not also careless? What a strange definition of careless.

You honestly don't think a batter has been careless with his bat when it ends up in the stands? I'll make sure I'm behind the backstop if I ever take in one of your games.

Ever wonder why the pros have bats go flying as often as they do?

If you death-grip a bat you will significantly hinder your ability to hit.

Sometimes they slip out of a batter's hands. That doesn't make it careless.

Admittedly, it's been years since I've had my season tickets, but I don't recall the pros having bats go flying on any basis that could be considered often.

Fine ... but when it does happen, do you think those umpires immediately issue a warning to the batter?

I suspect not as they aren't using FED.

California Angels fans sitting in the boxseat should consider bringing a helmet this season. When Josh Hamlton was at the plate, on-deck batter Adrian Beltre swung a bat in the bottom of the dugout...most times.

The 2013 OBR is now available on the mlb website.

6.05(h) has been amended. It now reads, in part:

"If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not." (Emphasis added to indicate the change.)

dash,
I don't think 6.05h is typically applicable to the situation being discussed here.
1) The topic of 6.05h refers to hitting or bunting a fair ball. It seems obvious to me (and others) that the entire rule applies when the ball is struck by the bat.
2) 6.05h comment refers to a play, so the rule also depends on the meaning of "play". IMO, a catcher attempting to catch a pitch is not normally a "play". It probably would be part of a play of a runner were stealing, however, since one way to define a "play or attempted play" is an attempt to retire a runner.

1. I thought about that, Dave. 6.05(h) Comment lists 5 separate rulings. All of them specifically refer to a batted ball except the one about a whole bat being thrown. I think that is conspicuous.

2. That's a good point, but by that definition, a fielder fielding a ground ball isn't making a play either. Interference is certainly possible without a play on a runner.

Dash, I don't believe the discussion here was ever about intentional or not. Most everyone of us would penalize a batter for interfering with a catcher trying to make a play or throwing a runner out, whether it was by an intentional or unintentional release of the bat.

The discussion was about certain individuals believing that the involuntary release of the bat on a swing , could be characterized as "careless" , depending upon where and how far it traveled.