Protested game

greymule · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 11, 2004, 08:10am

Stopped by an NCAA game yesterday and saw a coach put the game under protest for the following ruling.

Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker bunted and, as she took off for 1B, threw the bat down in front of the plate. (This was not some kind of unusual or violent throwing of the bat. The play looked normal, but she sort of "pushed," rather than "dropped," the bat to the ground.) The ball rolled up against the bat, and F2 grabbed the ball and threw to 1B for the out.

Coach argued that it should have been called a dead ball. (Exactly what else she was arguing was hard to determine. I don't know whether she claimed the batter should be out or not, but she was making a big deal about "intentionally.") Umps ruled the ball in play but informed the opposing coach that the game was being played under protest.

Any odds on the chances the protest will be upheld?

IRISHMAFIA · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 11, 2004, 09:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
Stopped by an NCAA game yesterday and saw a coach put the game under protest for the following ruling.

Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker bunted and, as she took off for 1B, threw the bat down in front of the plate. (This was not some kind of unusual or violent throwing of the bat. The play looked normal, but she sort of "pushed," rather than "dropped," the bat to the ground.) The ball rolled up against the bat, and F2 grabbed the ball and threw to 1B for the out.

Coach argued that it should have been called a dead ball. (Exactly what else she was arguing was hard to determine. I don't know whether she claimed the batter should be out or not, but she was making a big deal about "intentionally.") Umps ruled the ball in play but informed the opposing coach that the game was being played under protest.

Any odds on the chances the protest will be upheld?

Under normal conditions, this is an umpire's judgment call as to whether the bat hit the ball or vice versa. The only way I see this protest being upheld is if the umpire is dumb enough to question his/her own judgment.

However, since this is the National Coach's Athletic Association, who knows?

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 11th, 2004 at 11:16 PM]

kellerumps · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 11, 2004, 10:15am

Nope...No chance. The rule book is very clear. I can't believe that the umps let it get to a protest situation. The rulebook is very clear on how this type of situation is supposed to be handled.

When I get back, I will get the rulebook and cite the rules if people are interested.

greymule · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 11, 2004, 02:04pm

I'm sure it won't be upheld. I wasn't clear that my question about the odds was purely rhetorical. Ball hits bat is not interference. The umps did try to explain that, but the coach protested anyway.

bluezebra · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 11, 2004, 08:34pm

"Any odds on the chances the protest will be upheld?"

About the same as snow on the floor of Death Valley in August.

Del-Blue · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 12, 2004, 07:11am

One thing you need to remember. This was NCAA.

Batter is out.

Rule 11-21-h/Batting: The batter throws the whole bat into fair territory,whether intentional or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play.
Maybe that was what the coach was protesting.

You could also get two outs if the umpire judged it prevented a possible DP

I almost forgot. I guess it is still umpire judgment, so I would have to say it would not be upheld.

[Edited by Del-Blue on Apr 12th, 2004 at 08:13 AM]

kellerumps · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 12, 2004, 10:03am

I'm basing my arguments on Rule 11-15a based on the original play description.

Batter In/Out of Box, Bat out of hands(Ball hits bat) Fair ball Effect Live ball.

Even if the coach was protesting based on 11-21-h then you have batter interference in which case Rule 7-2-b applies regarding protests.

Protests will not be received or considered if they are based solely on the decision involving the accuracy of judgment of an umpire. Examples are..........

Whether there was or was not interference or obstruction.

In any case, it would appear that we have stumbled onto another inconsistency in the NCAA book.

If I had more information regarding the teams and conference then I would make a phone call or two to find out the result of this protest.

CecilOne · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 12, 2004, 10:53am

I don't think Rule 11-21-h applies to this kind of play. It is about the bat actually going toward a fielder like when it slips out of the batter's hands and flys toward F1 or F5. The word "whole" is in the book because it differentiates a whole bat from a broken piece of a bat, covered in 11-8-b, which is not interference. This case did not sound like the bat went toward a fielder.
Also it is about a "thrown" bat; whereas this case is apparently covered by 11-21-j and 11-15.

greymule · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 12, 2004, 01:46pm

I'll find out whether or not the protest was upheld, and when I do I'll post the result. I do remember that the coach was emphasizing "intentionally" as she was talking to the PU.

I admit the play did look a little unusual. After the ball hit the ground in front of the plate, the batter, already in a crouch, put the bat down hard, and apparently purposefully, in front of the plate. Still, the bat did not hit the ball. The ball rolled up against the bat.

I was not aware of the NCAA wrinkle about the whole bat being in fair territory, etc. Even so, I can't see how anyone could claim the bat interfered with the catcher. She didn't slip on the bat or avoid the bat or anything. She just grabbed the ball and fired to 1B for the out.

If anyone is interested, it was College of New Jersey versus Montclair State.

Del-Blue · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 10:16am

Even with the NCAA wrinkle, I think it would still be judgment by the PU as to wether the bat interfered with the catcher.