Just curious:-)))
 

Was watching an NCAA contest between Purdue and Michigan last weekend, and saw a batter hit a chopper in the dirt. Ball was spinning just inside the 1rst base line about a foot or so from home plate. When batter took off she dropped her bat and the knob end of the bat contacted the ball and kicked the ball into foul territory. PU ruled foul ball?? Are the NCAA rules concerning a bat hitting the ball a second time different from NFHS? In NFHS this would result in batter being called out I believe because bat hit the ball 2nd time in fair territory.
-also-
Same game saw a batter take a high inside pitch, and as she bent backwards to get out of the way the ball hit her on one of her hands. BU ruled HBP and sent her to 1rst base. The gal that was doing the broadcast say's "That should have been a foul ball as the hands are part of the bat"?????

ASA, NFHS, NCAA all the same. Ball hits bat, play on. Bat hits ball, Interference. Based on your description, umpire made mistake.

But we don't know what he saw.

WMB

I'm not an NCAA umpire, but I will say with certainty that bat hitting a ball a second time is ruled the same for ASA, FED, NCAA, etc.

Perhaps the umpire judged that the ball hit the legally discarded bat, instead of the bat hitting the ball. Maybe he flat-out didn't see any contact at all. Maybe he blew this call.

Hard to say what another person saw and judged.

As for the announcer, never trust a "talking head" to give a proper rule interpretation.

The announcer was dead wrong. The hands are, of course, part of the batter and not part of the bat.

Between Harold Reynolds and the announcers for softball employed by ESPN, I hear this comment at least a half-dozen times a year. And it's wrong everytime!

Actually, this year the NFHS rule changed. 7-4-11:The batter will be called out when her discarded bat hits the ball a second time. The previous determination of whether the bat hit the ball, or the ball hit the bat no longer applies. Neither does "intent" of the batter. The issue is addressed in the Comments on the 2006 Rules Revisions on Page 82. I find it a lot easier with this change, and there is less argument about which hit what, and what the batter "intended".

Actually, there is no real difference in NFHS this year from past. It is still ball hits bat, play on. Bat hits ball, interference. For years experienced umpires used that little theorem to call the game. When challenged, we could always find intent. The batter has a choice of where to discard the bat; if she chose to send it in the direction of the ball, that was an intentional act.

In 2006 NFHS removed the word "intent." Now those who got all hung up on judging intent can relax and make the simple call: bat hit ball, interference. Ball hits bat,play on.

WMB

Not true, only the requirement for intent changed. A ball hitting a stationary bat on fair ground is still live and in play.
The "The previous determination of whether the bat hit the ball, or the ball hit the bat no longer applies." misunderstanding is getting to be as much of a myth as the other one above.

I think the umpire was probably blocked from seeing the bat hit the ball, as the BR took a few steps while dropping the bat and the bat definitely hit the ball as the ball was just sitting there spinning until bat knocked it foul. It's actually good to "SEE" these kinds of plays to re-inforce my rules knowledge!!!

Does the rule say "stationary" or does it just say if the bat hits the ball a second time on or over fair territory?

Unlike ASA, there never was, nor is there a rule about the ball hitting the bat. The rule only addressed a bat hitting the ball a second time. Actually it doesn't matter if the bat is loose or still in the batter's hands (as long as batter is no longer in batter's box). Previous years the batter had to intentionally hit the ball a second time; in 2006 just the act of hitting the ball a second time is interference. This now matches ASA ruling, but the NFHS went further and applied the contact to foul territority if the umpire judged that the ball had a chance to become fair.

The ball hits bat part of the equation comes from an interpretation which is expressed in the NFHS casebook. 7.4.11 "after laying down the bat, the ball hits the bat in fair territory - ruling Live Ball." Or "drops the bat and the bat, while still moving, hit the ball - Ruling Dead Ball."

So we can assume, in the first example, that the bat was stationary when hit by the ball. IMO, if the bat is rolling away from the ball, and the ball catches up and contacts the bat I will still rule Live Ball.

WMB