Double swing thru the strike zone

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

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

It was only "horribly offending" because not 6 posts before yours the exact same thing was said, and it was answered.

[hawk65]

For those who are arguing that the first swing should not be counted because the batter wasn't swinging "AT" a pitched ball or because it could be considered "bat waggling," how would you call this if the batter only completed the first half of this OP - she swung after the pitch was released but clearly way before the ball got to the plate area and didn't continue the second swing through the strike zone but just stood there and watched the pitch go by? Wouldn't you call that a strike? And if you would call that a strike, why wouldn't you call it a strike in the OP?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by hawk65

For those who are arguing that the first swing should not be counted because the batter wasn't swinging "AT" a pitched ball or because it could be considered "bat waggling," how would you call this if the batter only completed the first half of this OP - she swung after the pitch was released but clearly way before the ball got to the plate area and didn't continue the second swing through the strike zone but just stood there and watched the pitch go by? Wouldn't you call that a strike? And if you would call that a strike, why wouldn't you call it a strike in the OP?

No, if a batter let the bat go through the strike zone this far before the pitch got there, I would not rule a strike. Why would you - they didn't try to hit the ball - in fact, if they didn't do the 2nd half, this would look EXACTLY like simple bat waggling.

[UMP 64]

If the batter is waving the bat, deliberately delaying the swing or doing any thing to protect the runner, in PU's judgement, other than a true swing to hit the ball, this is batter INT. The batter is not permitted to do anything other than a normal attempt to hit the ball swing. Any other action to PROTECT" the runner in illegal.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by UMP 64

If the batter is waving the bat, deliberately delaying the swing or doing any thing to protect the runner, in PU's judgement, other than a true swing to hit the ball, this is batter INT. The batter is not permitted to do anything other than a normal attempt to hit the ball swing. Any other action to PROTECT" the runner in illegal.

It is always interesting to me how private interpretations, elaborations, adding specificity, etc., that is not in the rule seems to grow. Since the OP was NFHS, here is the NFHS rule on batter interference. It is an exercise for the reader to compare that with Ump 64's statement.

Rule 7: Batting
Section 4: Batter Is Out
Article 4
The batter interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batter's box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by UMP 64

If the batter is waving the bat, deliberately delaying the swing or doing any thing to protect the runner, in PU's judgement, other than a true swing to hit the ball, this is batter INT. The batter is not permitted to do anything other than a normal attempt to hit the ball swing. Any other action to PROTECT" the runner in illegal.

Citations, please.

[hawk65]

The discussion of "protecting the runner" and/or "interference" is a red herring and a hijacking of the original post. In the OP, there is no mention of runners or interference -- the issue is the batter swinging the bat twice through the zone in the time between the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand and until it is struck by the batter on her second swing thru the zone after swinging it around her back. Suppose a coach tells the batter to swing at anything and miss in order to make an out and speed the game along. The batter swings the moment it leaves the pitcher's hand, completes her swing then stands there as the ball passes her and the plate (and it doesn't matter whether the ball passed the plate in the strike zone or bounced or was over the catcher's head). Would you rule that it wasn't a strike because she didn't swing "at" the ball or didn't make any attempt to hit the ball? Are you going to rule it was "bat waggling" and ignore the swing?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by hawk65

The discussion of "protecting the runner" and/or "interference" is a red herring and a hijacking of the original post. In the OP, there is no mention of runners or interference -- the issue is the batter swinging the bat twice through the zone in the time between the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand and until it is struck by the batter on her second swing thru the zone after swinging it around her back. Suppose a coach tells the batter to swing at anything and miss in order to make an out and speed the game along. The batter swings the moment it leaves the pitcher's hand, completes her swing then stands there as the ball passes her and the plate (and it doesn't matter whether the ball passed the plate in the strike zone or bounced or was over the catcher's head). Would you rule that it wasn't a strike because she didn't swing "at" the ball or didn't make any attempt to hit the ball? Are you going to rule it was "bat waggling" and ignore the swing?

If it was that far off, I probably would call it a non-swing. I doubt I was privy to the conversation. And this sounds like bat-waggling to me. I think we're REALLY stretching the point now to try to prove a negative ... but if you have to go this far, I'll go with you.

Point is - if someone tries to hit the ball or swings at approximately the same time the pitch comes through, it's an attempt. Random motions of the bat at other times is not. Don't try to make it harder than it is.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

It was only "horribly offending" because not 6 posts before yours the exact same thing was said, and it was answered.

Well forgiiiiiiive me for wasting the f'n bandwidth. I don't see where it was, but I will defer to your superior knowledge of all things knowable.

[jimpiano]

Wow.

This thread has been so enlightening.