Situation one:

Batter bunts the ball and the ball is rolling in fair territory up the first base line. The batter leaves the box and runs up the line. After she has left the box she dropps her bat in fair territoy on the ball, knocking the ball away from the approaching catcher. This was not done intentionally. Is this not obstruction? It was ultimately ruled a foul ball. She was clearly out of the batters box.


Situation 2:

Player attempts to bunt the ball with less than two strikes. The ball is foul tipped and the catcher catches the tip. Is this batter out? Meanwhile, the runner on first was attempting to steal 2nd. Is this runner in jeopardy of being put out at first for not tagging?

Thanks for any answers and I appreciate this forum.

From what you are describing, this would probably be interference. If the batter dropped the bat and it made contact with the ball, rather than the ball making contact with the bat, then interference would be the ruling and since the batter was out of the box, dead ball with the batter being out would be the correct penalty.

If, by a foul tip, you mean that the ball went directly to the catcher's hands and she held on to it, then no, this would not be an out. It would be a strike (either one or two) on the batter. The ball remains live and all runners can advance with liability to be put out. There is no need for the runner to tag up as with a caught fly ball.

Yup, and intent does not matter. If the bat drops, and then the ball rolls into the bat, then that is a nothing unless it is judged to have been done intentionally.

On the foul tip question, remember a foul tip is treated exactly like a swing and a miss. Strike on the batter (out if strike three) and ball remains live.

Thanks guys, I thought so.

Both calls were ruled wrong in a softball tourney my young daughter had the past weekend. They allowed the run to score in the first scenario, the tieing run to boot and just ruled the runner out. Luckily we won that game in extra innings. The second scenario, they call the batter out and the runner attempting steal was called out for not tagging up. I'm just a parent and the coach didn't question either. GRRRRRRR.

Managers/coaches who don't read, and understand, the rule book, are cheating their players.

Bob

In your first scenario, this would be interference under ASA, as intent is always assumed.
I don't have my case book handy, but this exact play is covered int it.
Under Fed rules it is different

Oops my bad, I said in the first scenario that the allowed the runner to score. I was thinking of an entirely unrelated umpire screw-up regarding an appealed interference call. What actually happened in the first scenario is that the ruling was a foul ball and the next pitch the girl laced into center for two RBI. She should been out and the inning should have been over. Oh well.

Just for my curiosity, how would fed rules rule it?

Same.

NFHS 7-3-6
If the bat breaks and is hit by the ball or hits a runner or a fielder, no interference will be called. If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference shall be called.
PENALTY: The batter is out and runners return. If, in the umpire's judgement, interference prevented a possible double play, two may be declared out.

Additionally,
NFHS 7-4-1k
A batter shall be called out when:
after hitting or bunting a ball, she intentionally hits the ball a second time in fair or foul territory; the ball is dead, no runner(s) advance and the batter is out.
EXCEPTION: If the bat and ball accidentally come in contact with each other a second time while the batter is holding the bat in the batter's box, it is a foul ball.

Mark - are you sure you have what the umpire decided correctly... both of these require SOME judgement.

In scenario 1, if the umpire felt the ball hit the bat (and not the bat hit the ball), it's Play On (in neither scenario is this a foul ball, unless the ball was in foul territory when it hit the bat).

In scenario 2, if the umpire felt the ball had some arc to it (this is not the technically best way to describe it, but it's the simplest), then you have a catch, and an out on the runner for not tagging, NOT a foul tip. Again, ruling correctly.

Were you the coach in these two situations? If so, what exactly did the umpire say he saw (what everyone else "saw" is immaterial). If he saw something different that what is described in this post, did you protest?

I am just a parent watching these games.

In the first scenario, the right handed girl bunted the ball and took off running with bat in hand, about two steps out of the box she released the bat literally on top of the ball as the ball was rolling, the ball shot out of bounds, they ruled it a foul ball. The only thing I can think of that maybe the umpire might have thought the bunter was not all the was out of the box, but her being a right handed batter and this took place a good ten feet up the 1b line, it was pretty clear she was not. Also, I don't think it matters if she was in the box as the ball did not hit her bat, she hit the ball with her bat. The coach never even questioned it.

the second scenario was definetly a tip. The umpire even went on to say that a foul tip on specifically a bunt was an out. He said it matter of factly as the coach did question the call, but did not "argue" it. He couldn't even confuse the count as it was the first pitch thrown to this hitter. Not only did he call the batter out, the catcher threw the ball to second on the steal, but the runner was safe on the play, they then threw the ball to first at the other coaches request and they doubled her up. I'm sorry, but this was just plain wrong calls.

In Sitch1, the batter's position in or out of the box is irrelevant. All that matters is - did the ball hit the bat, or did the bat hit the ball. Sounds like (HTBT) PU flubbed this one, but so did coach for not protesting.

In Sitch2, now PU is simply making up rules. And coach is falling down on the job by not protesting.

Guys, remember, in Fed ball you have the differentiation of the ball hitting the bat etc.
In ASA INTENT IS ALWAYS ASSUMED, so you have interference for this call.
It is one of the ruling that I don't like but it is there.
See your case book for this one.

No....

There may be some other differentiation in FED that you didn't make clear (at least to me) here...

But in ASA, if the ball hits a motionless bat, it's play on.

I really don't think I am wrong,
I don't have my case book here
BUT,
you need to check it out.
I made a phone call and even our association president agrees.
Will post when I have the casebook reference.

ASA, Intent is still required
 

Rule 7, Section 6 "The Batter Is Out.....Letter "K"...EXCEPTION #2 : If the batter drops the bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territoy, and, in the umpires judgement, there was no intention to interfere the batter is not out and the ball is live and in play.

Re: ASA, Intent is still required
 

Hmm, I need to find out where we got that from.

Okay, let me get this straight:

In ASA if the batter drops the bat onto a rolling ball, in other words, if the bat hits the ball, knocking it out of bounds away from F2 who is close to picking up the ball, then it is interference.

However, if the ball rolls into the dropped bat, and, in the umpire's judgement the batter did not intend to do it, and the ball gets knocked out of bounds, since it is Live and "play-on" it would be ruled foul.

In NHFS, if the batter, in the umpire's opinion, unintentionally drops the bat onto a rolling fair ball and knocks it out of bounds away from F2 who is close to scooping it up, it would be right to rule it a foul ball?

Just to be clear...

In softball, there is no such place as "out of bounds". There is fair territory, foul territory, and dead ball territory (sometimes called "out of play"). The field of play = fair territory + foul territory.

Speaking ASA:

1) If the batter drops the bat and the bat contacts a fair ball a second time in fair territory, the batter is out. (ASA 7-6-K)

2) If the batter drops the bat and the fair ball contacts the bat a second time in fair territory, and there was no intent to interfere (in the umpire's judgment), the ball is live, play on. (ASA 7-6-K-EXCEPTION-2)

3) If the batter drops the bat and one contacts the other in foul territory, it is a foul ball. (ASA 1-FOUL BALL-C)

Speaking NFHS,

1) If the batter intentionally (in the umpire's judgment)drops the bat so that the bat contacts the ball a second time in fair territory, the batter is out. (NFHS 7-4-K)

2) If the batter intentionally (in the umpire's judgment)drops the bat so that the bat contacts the ball a second time in foul territory and (in the umpire's judgment) the ball has a chance to become fair, the batter is out. (NFHS 7-4-K NOTE)

3) If the batter drops the bat and the ball contacts the bat a second time in fair territory, and there was no intent to interfere (in the umpire's judgment), the ball is live, play on. (NFHS Case Play 7.4.1-F-b)

4) If the batter drops the bat and one contacts the other in foul territory either without intent or where the ball does not have a chance to become fair, it is a foul ball. (NFHS 7-4-K NOTE & NFHS 2-25-1-d)

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 24th, 2005 at 04:34 PM]

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse out of bounds and foul territory.

You covered everything but this scenario in NFHS:

If the batter drops the bat, unintentionally in the umpires judgement, and the bat contacts a fair ball a second time in fair territory, knocking the fair ball into foul territory with no chance for it to become fair again what is the proper ruling?

Then add the scenario that F2 had a chance to pick up the ball and throw her out.

If the ball is knocked into foul territory. Is it foul? 0r because the ball was contacted a second time in fair territory does is it fair and it is necessary for f2 to chase it down?

Since there was no intent, and since the ball first made contact with a player's equipment over fair territory, it is a fair ball - live, play on. (NFHS 2-20-1-d)