Altered bat

[jimpiano]

Actually the correct ruling, as outlined in our ASA clinic, is to call the first batter out and eject him for using an altered bat. In an ASA Tournament he/she would be gone for the Tournament. The bat is confiscated.

If a pitch had been delivered to the second batter then he/she is the one called out and ejected, with no penalty for the first batter.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Actually the correct ruling, as outlined in our ASA clinic, is to call the first batter out and eject him for using an altered bat. In an ASA Tournament he/she would be gone for the Tournament. The bat is confiscated.

If a pitch had been delivered to the second batter then he/she is the one called out and ejected, with no penalty for the first batter.

It's good to see you (or any umpire, for that matter) attending an ASA clinic.

Can you please cite the rule reference for this situation? Thanks!

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by SRW

It's good to see you (or any umpire, for that matter) attending an ASA clinic.

Can you please cite the rule reference for this situation? Thanks!

Rule 7.Section 6,b,c and Rules Supplement #4

[wadeintothem]

hmm, got my book yesterday but hadnt looked at it yet. I didnt realize they changed that term.

Changing it from POE to supplement was for what exactly?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

hmm, got my book yesterday but hadnt looked at it yet. I didnt realize they changed that term.

Changing it from POE to supplement was for what exactly?

Maybe they decided it was too tiring to "emphasize" the same 30-ish things for years!

Or, truth in labeling... they are actually rules supplements, rather than points the ASA wants to "emphasize" this year.

[Skahtboi]

ASA ruling as cited is correct. Original batter(one now standing on first) is called out and ejected, and the bat is removed from the game, provided that no pitch has been delivered to the second batter using the bat.

[greymule]

In ASA, if Abel gets a hit with an illegal bat and then Baker steps into the box with the same bat, and the umpire becomes aware of the violation before the next pitch, Abel is out and Baker has to get another bat.

However, the book does not say what to do if Baker steps into the box with a different illegal bat.

What if the defense calls attention to Baker's illegal bat, and after you finish dealing with Baker, you discover that Abel's bat was also illegal? No pitch was thrown. Are they both out?

[Ha! I see that I asked a similar question 5 years ago.]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

hmm, got my book yesterday but hadnt looked at it yet. I didnt realize they changed that term.

Changing it from POE to supplement was for what exactly?

A "supplement" can be part of a whole. With the POE, many just cited that as interpretation or guidelines, not necessarily part of the rules.

I would think that by referring to these as "supplements", RSs become part of the rule for the purpose of application and protests.

Just an thought.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

A "supplement" can be part of a whole. With the POE, many just cited that as interpretation or guidelines, not necessarily part of the rules.

I would think that by referring to these as "supplements", RSs become part of the rule for the purpose of application and protests.

Just an thought.

That is a very interesting (and true) thought on it. It most definitely makes it seem more "rulish".

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

A "supplement" can be part of a whole. With the POE, many just cited that as interpretation or guidelines, not necessarily part of the rules.

I would think that by referring to these as "supplements", RSs become part of the rule for the purpose of application and protests.

Just an thought.

So, can I now be assured, then, that the ASA editorial board has removed every case of contradiction / out-of-date wording from the POE's (sorry, Rules Supplements)?

Yah, shur, youbetcha.

[JefferMC]

Wait a minute...

Did Irish and Wade just agree on something?