Batter carries her bat to first base ...

[CecilOne]

Scott, thanks, I needed something for the bottom of my to do list
"To read more about USSSA SP".

[tcblue13]

NSA
7-11-g
Any batter-runner who carries the bat during a live ball and legally reaches or touches 1st base while still holding the bat, will be declared out. Should this be the 3rd out of the inning, no preceding runner shall score.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

NSA
7-11-g
Any batter-runner who carries the bat during a live ball and legally reaches or touches 1st base while still holding the bat, will be declared out. Should this be the 3rd out of the inning, no preceding runner shall score.

Is that FP, SP or both? Is it an oxymoron to say "legally reaches or touches 1st base while still holding the bat"; if that is illegal?

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Is that FP, SP or both? Is it an oxymoron to say "legally reaches or touches 1st base while still holding the bat"; if that is illegal?

It only applies to FP and Modified

Your Oxy Moron (a dullard with acne) question does bring up something to think about.
If you strike out and run to first carrying the bat, since you did not reach 1B legally you must be safe.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Is that FP, SP or both?

Doesn't make any difference, stupid is as stupid does.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Entirely beneath your status in this forum, or umpiring for that matter.

What, stating that a rule forbiding a runner to touch the base is stupid? Well, I believe it is and do not see a problem with making such a statement.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What, stating that a rule forbiding a runner to touch the base is stupid? Well, I believe it is and do not see a problem with making such a statement.

It read like you were calling NSA stupid. I deleted my earlier post.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

It read like you were calling NSA stupid.

I thought he was calling the batter that carried the bat to first stupid but his reply makes it clear that the rule is what he feels is stupid. But, rules will not prevent people from doing things. There are rules against obstruction but players still obstruct and there are rules against USC but people still act the fool. What surprises me is that he usually wants to do anything that would prevent any possibility of a lawsuit. In this case, he seems to invite it. As strongly as he lobbies for ASA rules, changes, and modifications, I am sure that he finds some rules in that book stupid as well and he would probably list them if we were to ask him. I have alway appreciated his forthrightness and experience on this forum and will continue to read his posts with interest (even when I disagree). I especialy enjoy it when he poses a situation that places a conundrum in the minds of the umpires. But when someone gets 5000 posts s/he has earned the right to go beyond the situation on the field and to interject personal opinion whether it is complementary or unkind. We can all be grateful for his skills as an umpire and his ability to continually elicit replies on this forum. We would be wrong condemn his posts or to flame him because of his opinion. He is a very experienced umpire with much to say and much to teach. I know that he realizes how privileged he is on this forum and how much weight his posts carry. That is something that cannot be taken lightly. Even the b@$eb@ll guys come over to read his posts and that is saying something. We must always remember that we will never be perfect on the field though we will strive for that every game. Most of us will never reach his level of expertise though we would strive for that. Most of us will seek to be kind and respectful of others both on and off the field. Umpires are as umpires do.