2010 ASA Exam

[Tru_in_Blu]

Entering the batter's box is not the same as entering the field of play.

If you can head this off at the pass, everyone's better for it.

When the surgeon enters the operating room, he's surrounded by any number of tools. Hopefully he's not intending to use them all. He might ask the attending nurse for a particular implement and receive the wrong one. If the surgeon or someone else notices before it's used, everyone's better for it.

There's a reason why "intent" was removed from so many of the interference scenarios. It's too difficult to determine. Yes, I can see where the 1st batter of the game might approach HP with an illegal/altered bat and we could surmise that it was his intent to use it. But the rule is not violated until s/he enters the batter's box. And that's the truth - you could look it up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Where the hell did "intent" come from in this situation? Intent is NOT part of the rule.

Either the batter entered the BB or not with an altered or non-approved bat.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where the hell did "intent" come from in this situation? Intent is NOT part of the rule.

Either the batter entered the BB or not with an altered or non-approved bat.

Thanks Mike. I really thought I missed something!

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where the hell did "intent" come from in this situation? Intent is NOT part of the rule.

Either the batter entered the BB or not with an altered or non-approved bat.

From a couple of posts back. My point is that we're not there to interpret a batter's intent when he approaches the BB w/ an altered/NA bat. If you see it before he steps in, remove the bat from the game.

If he steps into the BB, or manages to get on base, even on a base on balls, and someone points out the bat, he's gone.

I think we're in violent agreement.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

From a couple of posts back. My point is that we're not there to interpret a batter's intent when he approaches the BB w/ an altered/NA bat. If you see it before he steps in, remove the bat from the game.

If he steps into the BB, or manages to get on base, even on a base on balls, and someone points out the bat, he's gone.

I think we're in violent agreement.

My apologies for not properly citing the original post which introduced the thought:

The bottom line here is "intent." What does the batter "intend" to do with the bat? - USE IT. That's good enough for me.

IOW, I wasn't responding to you, Tru.

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Yes, he intended to use it, but tell me... What rule did he actually break?

Illegal bat - Rule 3.1
Altered bat - Rule 3.1.J.
I try to use as much "preventive umpiring" as I can. If I see a problem, I deal with it NOW, not later. In this case, I see him stepping in the batter's box with an illegal or altered bat, I'm ruling on it NOW, BEFORE any further action happens (which will only complicate matters).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

Illegal bat - Rule 3.1
Altered bat - Rule 3.1.J.
I try to use as much "preventive umpiring" as I can. If I see a problem, I deal with it NOW, not later. In this case, I see him stepping in the batter's box with an illegal or altered bat, I'm ruling on it NOW, BEFORE any further action happens (which will only complicate matters).

Speaking ASA 2009 Rule Book

The word "illegal" does not appear in 3.1 and Altered Bat specifically directs the reader to Rule 7.6.B which is not in effect until the batter enters the box. Rule 7.6.C covers a player using an illegal bat and it, too, specifically requires the batter to enter the box.

If you see it before the batter comes to the plate, you do what I did at a Men's Major Church NC. You confiscate the bat, throw it over the backstop and ask another umpire or someone from the tournament committee to lock it up.

And "intent" isn't relevant at any time.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

Illegal bat - Rule 3.1
Altered bat - Rule 3.1.J.
I try to use as much "preventive umpiring" as I can. If I see a problem, I deal with it NOW, not later. In this case, I see him stepping in the batter's box with an illegal or altered bat, I'm ruling on it NOW, BEFORE any further action happens (which will only complicate matters).

Right, but... The question that was posed did not involve the batter stepping into the box. The bat was spotted before the batter did so. Since the batter had not yet stepped into the box, no rule was broken (other than having an illegal bat in the warm-up circle, but there's no out or ejection for that).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Right, but... The question that was posed did not involve the batter stepping into the box. The bat was spotted before the batter did so. Since the batter had not yet stepped into the box, no rule was broken (other than having an illegal bat in the warm-up circle, but there's no out or ejection for that).

You've got a lot of nerve using logic to make a point!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You've got a lot of nerve using logic to make a point!

Especially when it involves an umpire exam question!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You've got a lot of nerve using logic to make a point!

Yep, I've got much to learn about this here job.