Dead Ball

victoria_mom · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 07:42am

High school softball game.....batter 1 on first base...batter 2 count: 2 balls 2 strikes...3rd strike pitch bounces off catchers mitt, ball is in the air as batter drops bat to run to first base the bat comes in contact with the ball...official called dead ball and batter is out...batter 1 had advanced to 2nd base as this was happening...Was the dead ball a correct call and should batter 1 have to return to 1st base? Thanks for helping me on this?

CecilOne · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 08:28am

The questions are whether the bat-ball conatct was deliberate by the batter and whether the ball was fair or foul at the time. If foul, just that, it's a foul ball. If fair and deliberate, an out. If fair and not deliberate and the bat is ccompletely out of the batter's hands, then it's in play, just as if there never was contact. If the play caused a dead ball, then yes, the other runner(s) remain at the last base touched when the ball became dead.

Smiley · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 08:35am

With less than 2 outs and 1st base occupied, why was the batter going to first base?

WestMichiganBlue · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 09:17am

With less than 2 outs and 1st base occupied, why was the batter going to first base?

Maybe batter 8 & 9 had already been retired. Mom didn't say.

Cecil: If foul, just that, it's a foul ball.

Technically not completely correct. If the umpire judges that the ball could become a fair ball, then interference is the call.

Cecil: If fair and not deliberate and the bat is ccompletely out of the batter's hands, then it's in play

I am not sure you can judge intent when the batter lets go of her bat and it rolls and knocks the ball away from the catcher. Intent or not, that is still interference.

The easy way to call this is to judge "what hits what?" If the ball hits the bat (which is stationary on the ground) then the bat is legally part of the playing surface and No Interference. If the bat is still moving and it hits the ball, then call Interference.

WMB

IRISHMAFIA · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 12:45pm

I know this is HS, but even in Fed ball, I don't think you can legally bat a ball, fair or foul, after it has contacted anything other than the ground.

It would seem to me that if the ball and bat were both airborne, or the ball hit the ground prior to contact, that would have to be the bat going to the ball and an interference call.

If the bat hit the ground prior to contacting the ball, then I would think this was a ball to bat situation and the ball would remain in play.

Just my two cents,

victoria_mom · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 02:26pm

I'm sorry I didn't elaborate enough on my question. Let me try again. Yes, there were already 2 outs which is why she was running to 1st on a third strike. The Batter had swung at the ball. Catcher failed to catch the ball, it bounced off her glove and was airborn. Bat was also airborn when it came in contact with the ball. Now, who knows which hit what? I don't, and I was there looking at it!I don't know how y'all can keep up with all the rules. I keep UIL rule books and case books with me and still have situations that come up that are not in either. Thanks for all your help!

WestMichBlue · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 03:55pm

Based on your revised description. See Mike's explanation above. Shouldn't be any question that is interference. Only if the bat is already on the ground - and stationary - are we going to allow play to continue.

I don't know how y'all can keep up with all the rules. I keep UIL rule books and case books with me and still have situations that come up that are not in either.

V-Mom - Rule books and even case books does not cover every situation that can occur. A lot of our decisions are based on information from Interpreters within the rules group passed down to umpires at training clinics.

In cases like yours we take other rules and apply common sense to the actual situation. Specifically the FED rule book 7.4.1.k requires that the batter hit the ball with the bat intentionally,and the case book reiterates that point. I don't see intent in your case. But if I read the definition of Interference 2.32 I see that Interference can be called for any action by the offensive team (your batter) that interfers or hinders a fielder (your catcher) from making a play. When your batter hit that ball a second time, intentional or not, she hindered the catcher. Because Interference is an immediate dead ball, we are not going to wait to see if the catcher could have made a play. Ball's dead, batter is out, runner is returned.

Hope this helps.
WMB

CecilOne · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2003, 10:18am

From the differences list:

NFHS: A bat hitting a fair ball will not rule the batter out, unless the act is determined to be intentional.
7-4 K

ASA: Any time the bat hits the ball over fair territory, it is considered intent and the batter is ruled out. If the ball hits the bat, it is ruled fair or foul depending where they hit each other.
7-6 I

WestMichBlue · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2003, 01:30pm

NFHS: A bat hitting a fair ball will not rule the batter out, unless the act is determined to be intentional.
7-4 K

This is not a rule, but an opinion of someone on the effects of the rule (as compared to another body of rules.)
The FED book does not say we will NOT rule a batter out; it does says that we CAN call batter out if act is intentional. Big difference.

I have already noted above that the book requires intent, but my position is that if the batter flings the bat and knocks the ball away from the fielder tnen I am going to use rule 2.3 to call her out for interference.

WMB

CecilOne · #10 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 22, 2003, 02:47pm

Sorry if I confused the issue by forgetting that the differences list is paraphrased, not literal quotes. I was trying to reinforce the point that intent is a factor in NFHS. And yes, I left out "If the umpire judges that the ball could become a fair ball, then interference is the call." in my initial response about a foul being a foul; but it seems that requires intent as well.