Double swing thru the strike zone

[mcrowder]

It's like deja vu all over again.

Why are people trying to make this difficult. The OP is legal, and the first time through the zone with the bat, a long time before the ball is even there, is nothing. The superfluous (and non-analogous) situation posited TWICE now is completely different, and of course it's a strike when they do that.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

So...for instance, if a runner is trying to steal and the batter swings the bat out there into the strike zone in order to protect the runner...but the pitch is a foot over the batter's head, hence about three feet above the bat...that would be a ball?

Not in any game I am working.

The OP situation is a batter swinging the bat well before the ball reaches the plate - so much well before that the batter is able to make a second swing and hit the ball.

It has nothing to do with your situation. The post I was responding to said it was a strike because the bat passed through the zone (even though the pitch was, say, 30' away and the batter was obviously NOT trying to strike at the ball).

Your situation, I would just call a poor swing, and a strike.

[varefump]

BuggBob is absolutely correct. This would be a strike and dead ball (foul).

Dakota was right with the definitions but his explanations are wrong.

There's nothing in the rulebook of that states the batter has to attempt to hit the ball in order for a pitch to be ruled a strike. What would be the call if a batter swings late (after the catcher has already caught the ball) and the pitch was not in the strike zone? That's a strike in my book.

The NCAA and NFHS made interpretations regarding this exact play a few years ago. The batter can only swing at a pitch one time. Contact with the ball by the bat after the first swing is considered a foul ball.

I know, MCROWDER will disagree, but intent is not a factor.

Using the definitions of a strike: "any pitch ... that is swung at by the batter and missed" and when a pitch starts: "when one hand is taken off the ball or the pitcher makes any motion that is part of the windup...", it is clear that the ruling on this play is a strike and foul ball.

Hopefully, you naysayers will own up to the fact that you are wrong this time.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by varefump

There's nothing in the rulebook of that states the batter has to attempt to hit the ball in order for a pitch to be ruled a strike.

Oh dear God, I don't even know where to start... So I'll let you guys.

I will ask, however - what do you think Swung AT means? It certainly doesn't include just bringing the bat through the zone at random moments.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by varefump

BuggBob is absolutely correct. This would be a strike and dead ball (foul).

Dakota was right with the definitions but his explanations are wrong.

There's nothing in the rulebook of that states the batter has to attempt to hit the ball in order for a pitch to be ruled a strike. What would be the call if a batter swings late (after the catcher has already caught the ball) and the pitch was not in the strike zone? That's a strike in my book.

The NCAA and NFHS made interpretations regarding this exact play a few years ago. The batter can only swing at a pitch one time. Contact with the ball by the bat after the first swing is considered a foul ball.
... it is clear that the ruling on this play is a strike and foul ball.

Hopefully, you naysayers will own up to the fact that you are wrong this time.

Hmmmm.... so the first swing is a strike, and the second is a foul ball? Anyone for Bugs Bunny? The first is a nothing. It is not a swing at the pitch, therefore it is nothing more than a goofy practice swing or warm up swing or other preliminary movement of the bat by the batter.

I know you guys WANT this first swing to be something, but it isn't.

Can anyone provide a reference for the NFHS ruling that was done? How many years ago was "a few"? I don't remember anything recent, but I could be wrong.

[Al]

Originally Posted by varefump

BuggBob is absolutely correct. This would be a strike and dead ball (foul).

Dakota was right with the definitions but his explanations are wrong.

There's nothing in the rulebook of that states the batter has to attempt to hit the ball in order for a pitch to be ruled a strike. What would be the call if a batter swings late (after the catcher has already caught the ball) and the pitch was not in the strike zone? That's a strike in my book.

The NCAA and NFHS made interpretations regarding this exact play a few years ago. The batter can only swing at a pitch one time. Contact with the ball by the bat after the first swing is considered a foul ball.

I know, MCROWDER will disagree, but intent is not a factor.

Using the definitions of a strike: "any pitch ... that is swung at by the batter and missed" and when a pitch starts: "when one hand is taken off the ball or the pitcher makes any motion that is part of the windup...", it is clear that the ruling on this play is a strike and foul ball.

Hopefully, you naysayers will own up to the fact that you are wrong this time.

NFHS Rule Book
Rule 2: Definitions
Section 56: Strike, Strikeout, Strike Zone
Art. 1... Strike. A strike is ANY pitch that ...is swung at by the batter and missed.

Rule 7: Batting
Section 2: Strikes, Balls And Hits
Art. 1... A strike is charged to the batter when:
b. a PITCHED BALL is struck at and missed.

I read that to mean after a pitch is released from the pitchers hand (any pitch) and a batter misses it upon swinging the bat (striking at a pitched ball) it is to be called a strike. I don't think an umpire is to judge the intent of the batter and I believe the batter is to be allowed only one swing. Until I see a rule that clearly allows a batter to swing fully through the plate after the ball is pitched and not have it called a strike I believe any swing and miss at a pitched ball should be called a strike. Just because the swing was way early and the umpire believes his intent was not to hit the ball it does not make it a non-swing IMO. ..Al

[Dakota]

Do you also call a strike on bat-wagglers?

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Do you also call a strike on bat-wagglers?

No I don't Tom. But until I see a rule that clearly allows a batter to swing fully through the plate after the ball is pitched and not have it called a strike I think I am correct and that first swing in the OP should be called a strike followed by a dead ball on contact with 2nd swing. ...I tried to find a rules interpreter to pose this question to but couldn't find one. Maybe someone else knows how to contact one and will get the correct ruling.

BTW, since I respect you and many others here I would like to ask what you, as well as others do to keep focussed during games? Is there anything in particular you have found to be helpful that you perhaps run through you head on each pitch? ...Al

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Al

No I don't Tom. But until I see a rule that clearly allows a batter to swing fully through the plate after the ball is pitched and not have it called a strike I think I am correct and that first swing in the OP should be called a strike followed by a dead ball on contact with 2nd swing. ...I tried to find a rules interpreter to pose this question to but couldn't find one. Maybe someone else knows how to contact one and will get the correct ruling.

BTW, since I respect you and many others here I would like to ask what you, as well as others do to keep focussed during games? Is there anything in particular you have found to be helpful that you perhaps run through you head on each pitch? ...Al

So ... Irish is not a good enough "rules interpretor" for you to accept a ruling from? Sheesh.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

So ... Irish is not a good enough "rules interpretor" for you to accept a ruling from? Sheesh.

All due respect (which is a lot) to Mike, the OP was NFHS.

[Al]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

So ... Irish is not a good enough "rules interpretor" for you to accept a ruling from? Sheesh.

No doubt... Mike, Dakota, and you Mcrowder are among the best to get information from and I can say all three of you have proven to know what you're talking about over and over again. I am thankful for all you have taken time to share, but when I, or anyone else (of whom I also have great respect for) has a different take on what the intent of a rule is I want further confirmation. Is that wrong?

Jay Miner, who is Author and Columnist for Referee Magazine and the NASO Baseball and Softball Interpreter didn't agree with you and Mike's interpretation in the thread.. "Control (out) or not?" last year that was started by DaveASA/FED. I think that thread was a good one but some have made light of it.

I've got two games to call tonight so I need to start getting ready. Later, ..Al

[UMP 64]

Still a strike. If the swing was made to "protect the runner" then you have batters INT/F, batter is out, runner goes back to preveious base or third out!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Al

Jay Miner, who is Author and Columnist for Referee Magazine and the NASO Baseball and Softball Interpreter didn't agree with you and Mike's interpretation in the thread..

Well, in my mind, that vindicates our view. Thank you for the endorsement.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

It's like deja vu all over again.

Why are people trying to make this difficult. The OP is legal, and the first time through the zone with the bat, a long time before the ball is even there, is nothing. The superfluous (and non-analogous) situation posited TWICE now is completely different, and of course it's a strike when they do that.

forgive me for even f'n talking. I hve removed my horribly offending post.

[UMP 64]

If the batter was trying to "protect the runner" as another thread implied, then that is int. and should be called.