Double swing thru the strike zone
 

NFHS, last game of the season, no playoff issues for either team. Score is mounting and team A eventually wins 19-2. Late in the game, batter for A decides to experiment/hot dog/accept a dare or whatever. Batting left-handed, just as the ball leaves the pitcher's hand, she swings while stepping forward in the batter's box like a slap-hitter. She is intentionally swinging very early with no intent to hit the ball at this point. She completes her swing, releases her left hand, continues the swing with her right hand, reaches back with her left hand and grabs the swinging bat behind her with her left hand and continues swinging with her left hand in a second swing thru the strike zone. She hits the pitch on the ground in a slap-hit manner and gets an infield hit. Lots of "oohs" and "aahs" and whooping from teammates and fans. Impressive, but is it legal? If not, what rule do you cite? And if she misses the second time, do you call two strikes -- either by rule or playing along with her hot-dogging?

Unfortunately....
 

...legal in all respects. In a game management opportunity, couldn't you get her out for "out of the box" or some other phantom reason. I hate when players "hot dog" in any respect.

Was this done to taunt the opponents?

It didn't appear to be a taunting act. I would characterize it more as a frivolous and playful moment by the batter and her teammates during a game that was clearly decided. Winning team going to the playoffs and having some fun, losing team playing out the season and silently acknowledging and perhaps admiring the skills of the winning team.

In my book showing off in such a manner is a form of taunting. I've given a nice talking to to a few 1B fielders that upon making a great play on a ball down the line have stood by first base and waited for the runner to get close before stepping on the bag. To me this is a form of taunting equal to saying "you thought you could get one by me, but I'm better than you". Alot of times its the attitude that goes with it, and the context in which it happens. Your case and my example are cases where the spirit of the game is being violated. All it takes is F1 to get offended and decide she is going to put one in the middle of the next batter's back (or the current batter if she had missed) and we've got a nice little battle going on.

For the record though, you can never charge 2 strikes on one pitch.

Showboating/grandstanding maybe, taunting? Give me a break.

OK, I was just asking... a lot would depend on the atmosphere at the game. Showing off is not necessarily taunting, but I wanted to point out that the high school rules specifically identify taunting as forbidden.

double swing
 

The batter should have received a strike call. A batter cannot swing more than one time at one pitch. Dead ball, Strike.

I agree and think an umpire should immediately give a loud and clear strike call upon the first swing to any batter who does that. And if she still swings a second time and makes contact as she did in the OP following that loud and clear strike call everyone should clearly understand why the dead ball was called on contact. .. Al

double swing?????
 

Good call AL.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

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.

I agree with you Mike, BUT, what about this act. R1 on first, stealing with the pitch. Batter swings on the release of the pitch, absolutely no intent to hit the ball, she's just trying to protect the runner. I have seen this happen often and it is always called a strike. I think trying to sell a no strike to the DC would be nearly impossible.

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?

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.

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?

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

:D

See revised signature.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:confused:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Double swing
 

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!

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

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

double swing?????
 

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

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

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.

double swing
 

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.

Citations, please.

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.

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.

Wow.

This thread has been so enlightening.