NFHS Rules - Illegal bat

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

Off the top of my head, and speaking NFHS:

I have two outs: One for using the illegal bat, and one for entering the box with an illegal bat (pretty sure that is correct). However, I have only one warning, and no restrictions (not quite as sure on that one).

7-4-2 says the batter is out when, ". . . The batter enters the batter's box with an illegal bat or is discovered having used an illegal bat and the infraction is detected before the next legal or illegal pitch (only the umpire or defense may detect an illegal bat).

The word "or" has me a bit concerned that we really cannot get two outs here. Granted, both batters have technically violated. But, considering both the wording and intent of the rule, I'm not sure whether or not we can get two outs on this play. I could not find a case play that parallels your OP.

Likewise, IMO we cannot restrict anyone here. Although two have technically violated, we have only one instance of the DC lodging the discovery. One out. One warning. One bat removal.

However, I would be open to hear arguments for getting two outs, a warning, and a restriction all at the same time. (I think a good case could be made based on the rules.) I don't think that punishment would fit the crime, however.

Interesting sitch!

[Tru_in_Blu]

I believe there is only 1 out here. It may depend upon when the coach asks the PU to check the bat. If after a pitch, runner at first remains and current batter would be out. If before a pitch, runner at first is out. Batter would have to get a different bat.

[RKBUmp]

I dont see where the word "or" would limit the call to only a single out. The rule is simply stating the 2 instances where a batter would be called out for having used an illegal bat. You have a batter on base who used the bat, no pitch has been thrown and has been properly appealed by the defense. And, in a completely seperate incident, you have a second batter who has stepped into the batters box with the same illegal bat.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, I cannot help myself, I gotta say it.

The subsequent batted did not violate the rule. She did not enter the box with an illegal bat, she entered empty handed. The bat was already there!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, I cannot help myself, I gotta say it.

The subsequent batted did not violate the rule. She did not enter the box with an illegal bat, she entered empty handed. The bat was already there!

Cute!

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, I cannot help myself, I gotta say it.

The subsequent batted did not violate the rule. She did not enter the box with an illegal bat, she entered empty handed. The bat was already there!

Well played, sir!

[Dakota]

Upon further word play review, to paraphrase a former philanderer-in-chief, it depends on what the meaning of "with" is...

You're assuming it means to enter the batter's box with the bat in her possession.

Maybe it means the batter entered the box to be with the bat!

[AtlUmpSteve]

No NFHS case play on this. Not the same rule set, but the same rule; in ASA you CANNOT call both out in this case. You would get the last batter, nullify any other advances, and remove the bat, so that the subsequent batter maust get a new bat.