Altered bat
 

The lead off batter singles to right in a slow pitch game.

The next batter picks up the same bat and steps into the batters box.

The umpire determines that the bat is altered, calls the batter out,ejects him from the game and confiscates the bat. ( By League rules the batter is suspended for the next game)

Was this the correct ruling?

It might depend on what rule set the game is being played under. Different associations have different penalties.

Plus, it sounds like this league has their own "house" rule for handling this, what with the next game suspension and all, which doesn't match the penalty described by several associations.

For instance, this call doesn't match the ASA interpretation, but we don't know that the game was being played under ASA rules.

Speaking ASA, the batter should have been DQed, not ejected. But, there is a note that in this situation DQ will be "treated like" an ejection (except that the team may play shorthanded). I assume that means the league sanctions would still apply.

Also, if no pitch had been thrown to the second batter, the first batter should also have been declared out and DQed.

Tom,

You might want to take a peek at the 2007 rule book and rethink your answer!

The rules are ASA. The League has added penalties for using an altered bat.

Don't have the 2007 book yet, and I didn't think to check the rule changes, either. We don't get our books until the rules clinics, and they start next month. Oh, well, it's late at night. And I'm too cheap to order a book early just to be prepared for these forums... Ejected he is.

Not only the ejection vs. DQ is different (yes, that is a 2007 rule change), but you can only call one of the players out.

See POE #4 in the 2006 edition (which has magically morphed to "Rules Supplement" #4 in the 2007 book).

Since the correct rule set for this game has been identified, no, that was not the correct call.

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!

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

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! :D

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

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.

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.]

Rule 7-6,c would cover Baker and he would be called out.

Once Baker is called out we move on to Charles.

At this point how could anyone prove Abel used an altered/illegal bat,anyway?
If the defense provides the bat they allege was used by Abel and it is determined to be altered/illegal the bat will be removed from the game.

If Baker has been called out for using an illegal bat, it's too late to do anything regarding Able.

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".

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)? :rolleyes:

Yah, shur, youbetcha. :cool: ;)

Wait a minute...

Did Irish and Wade just agree on something?:D

They agree quite often, actually ... just not usually on a post initiated by Wade. But on posts initiated by the general populus, you can generally count on both of them to be in agreement (and correct as well).