Double swing thru the strike zone

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Very different sitch. If the swinging of the bat is somewhat near the timing of the ball coming through, you're probably just ruling a strike.

If you truly feel that there was no attempt to hit the ball at all, and only an attempt to interfere .... don't you think that is not a strike, but rather interference?

Absolutely no attempt to hit the ball. Obviously, the 'intent' (we don't have intent anymore, do we?) was to 'freeze' the middle fielders and and the catcher, hoping to give the runner a better opportunity to steal.

If that act could be construed as interfence, wouldn't fake bunting be as well?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Please do not tell me that you would rule INT just because a batter moved the bat without trying to hit the ball.

I guess the next part of this thread will move to the "waving" of the bat at the plate to protect a stealing runner.

Well, I gotta call sumthin' since, well, I just don't like it!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Bringing the bat through the strikezone with no intent to hit the ball is not a strike. Nothing illegal about this sitch, and it's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be allowed.

See revised signature.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Please do not tell me that you would rule INT just because a batter moved the bat without trying to hit the ball.

I guess the next part of this thread will move to the "waving" of the bat at the plate to protect a stealing runner.

Maybe you misunderstood me.

What I mean here is that any such swing designed to protect the runner which remotely coincides with the pitch should be interpreted as an attempt to hit the pitch. The OP's first "swing" was not anywhere near the time the ball crossed the plate, and should not be ruled as an attempt to hit the ball (and based on your first response, I think you agree with that). THIS sitch should be ruled an attempt to hit the ball. Only if the timing of the swing was so far apart from the timing of the pitch that it's only purpose could be to interfere, then it's interference. The "intent" here, for want of a better word, had better be crystal clear if you're going to rule no-strike, interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Why is it interference? How does it possibly interfere with any defensive player executing a play? The pitcher still delivers the pitch. The catcher cannot have a play until she gets the ball.

You are aware that this is just another version of what has been going on for a few years where the batter intentionally swings early and hits the ball on the follow through. It's nothing new and legal. Just a bit of deception trying to get the infield back on their heels. If you are going to start ruling this interference, what do you call a pitcher with a great change-up that fools the batter?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why is it interference? How does it possibly interfere with any defensive player executing a play? The pitcher still delivers the pitch. The catcher cannot have a play until she gets the ball.

You are aware that this is just another version of what has been going on for a few years where the batter intentionally swings early and hits the ball on the follow through. It's nothing new and legal. Just a bit of deception trying to get the infield back on their heels. If you are going to start ruling this interference, what do you call a pitcher with a great change-up that fools the batter?

If this response was for me ... you are severely stretching my words. I said (twice, I believe) that the OP was nothing and that the sitch added by MNBlue was almost definitely just a strike. I'm not going to "start ruling" that this was interference ... unless it was, and it would have to be ridiculously late to even consider interference. You seem to think I was advocating INT, when I was in fact arguing just the opposite and trying to make the point that it would have to be EXTREMELY obvious that it was not an attempt to hit the ball for INT to even be a glimmer of thought on the horizon. If you're responding to him, and not me ... well ... nevermind.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Then I'm misreading your post.

Only if the timing of the swing was so far apart from the timing of the pitch that it's only purpose could be to interfere, then it's interference. The "intent" here, for want of a better word, had better be crystal clear if you're going to rule no-strike, interference.

This is to what I am referring. I still do not see any chance of INT. Remember, the entire premise is for the second swing to occur as the ball is still approaching the plate.

[BuggBob]

Swing and a miss -- Strike, hitting the ball on the follow through -- dead ball! While this is a remarkable bit of swinging it is not a hit. If she would have missed on the second time though would you have called strike two? I saw that in a Bugs Bunny cartoon once. Struck out the side on one pitch.

Bugg

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then I'm misreading your post.
This is to what I am referring. I still do not see any chance of INT. Remember, the entire premise is for the second swing to occur as the ball is still approaching the plate.

I see the confusion now... You refer to the second swing ... which was in the OP. I was not responding to the OP in the passage you quoted. I was responding to MNBlue's followup question. In his sitch, it would have to be WAY WAY WAY after the ball crossed the plate for an umpire to even consider INT.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BuggBob

Swing and a miss -- Strike, hitting the ball on the follow through -- dead ball! While this is a remarkable bit of swinging it is not a hit. If she would have missed on the second time though would you have called strike two? I saw that in a Bugs Bunny cartoon once. Struck out the side on one pitch.

Bugg

Bob, did you read any of the other responses here? The first "swing and a miss" was not an attempt to hit the ball at all - merely bat movement that occurred prior to the actual attempt to hit the ball. Your ruling would be incorrect.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I said (twice, I believe) that the OP was nothing and that the sitch added by LMan was almost definitely just a strike.

Musta been someone else. I am far too abjectly ignorant of softball rules to comment intelligently on this forum, I just lurk.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by LMan

Musta been someone else. I am far too abjectly ignorant of softball rules to comment intelligently on this forum, I just lurk.

Sorry - I meant MNBLue and have fixed the posts.

[BuggBob]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Bob, did you read any of the other responses here? The first "swing and a miss" was not an attempt to hit the ball at all - merely bat movement that occurred prior to the actual attempt to hit the ball. Your ruling would be incorrect.

I think that the OP said she swung at the ball like slap. But since I was not there I can only picture in my mind's eye what happened bases upon the description.
I believe that the intent to hit or not to hit is irrelevant here, if she swung the bat though the strike zone and then carried it around her back and hit the ball the second time the bat passed though the shrike zone -- I got a swing and a miss and a dead ball for hitting the ball on the follow through.

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings on what I was saying.

[Dakota]

The bat passing through the "strike zone" means absolutely nothing. It is only a strike if the batter was attempting to hit the ball. Moving the bat is not all that is required for a swinging strike. The batter must be moving the bat AT the ball.

[bkbjones]

Like I said, I am an idiot. Please forgive me for even pretending to think I knew anything about anything.