NFHS Rules - Illegal bat

[Dakota]

A situation blatantly stolen from another board, to get a different set of eyes looking at it. NFHS rules. Assume NFHS-mandated plate meeting was held properly and correctly.

Batter hits a single and drops the bat in the batters box. Next batter comes to the plate and takes her position with the same bat in the batters box. Defensive coach asks for time to talk to PU about the bat being illegal. PU agrees the bat is illegal.

What is your ruling, including whether there are any restrictions to the bench.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Dakota

A situation blatantly stolen from another board, to get a different set of eyes looking at it. NFHS rules. Assume NFHS-mandated plate meeting was held properly and correctly.

Batter hits a single and drops the bat in the batters box. Next batter comes to the plate and takes her position with the same bat in the batters box. Defensive coach asks for time to talk to PU about the bat being illegal. PU agrees the bat is illegal.

What is your ruling, including whether there are any restrictions to the bench.

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).

[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!

[SergioJ]

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).

Question: If you have two outs, why then wouldn't you have a restriction? Rule book states that on the first infraction, the batter is out and coach warned. The next player found to be "illegally" equipped, will result in both player and coach restricted. So, with you awarding two outs, I would think that you would also have to penalize the second batter accordingly.

Of course, I'm not sure I would take this route myself. I'm more inclined to call the first batter (who is now on base) out and warn coach. Then, prior to pitch, have the illegal bat removed from the game. Now, if a player still "insists" on using the illegal bat, then you can penalize accordingly (out and restriction). But, at least you gave the coach a chance to remove the illegal bat. Just my thoughts.

[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.