24. HITTING THE BALL A SECOND TIME.
When considering the act of a batter hitting the pitched ball a second time,
umpires should place the act into one of three categories.
A. If the bat is in the hands of the batter when the ball comes in contact
with bat, and the batter is in the batter's box, it is a foul ball. If, when
the bat contacts the ball a batter's entire foot is completely outside the
122
RULES SUPPLEMENT
batter's box, the batter is out When in doubt, don't guess the batter
out. Call a foul ball.
B. If the bat is out of the batter's hands, dropped or thrown, and it hits the
ball a second time in fair territory, the ball is dead and the batter-runner
is out. However, if the BALL hits the bat on the ground, the batter is
not out and the umpire must then determine whether the ball is fair or
foul based on the fair / foul rule. If the ball rolls against the bat in fair
territory, the ball remains live. If the ball stops or is touched in fair territory,
it is a fair ball. If the ball touches the bat in fair territory and then
rolls to foul ground and stops, it is a foul ball. If the ball rolls against
the bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball.
C. If a batter swings at and misses the pitched ball but:
1. Accidentally hits it on the follow-through, or
2. Intentionally hits it on the second swing, or
3. Hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or mitt / glove.
The ball is dead, and all runners must return to the base they
occupied prior to the pitch. (FP, SP with Stealing and 16" SP) In
(2) and (3), if the act is intentional with runners on base, the batter
is called out for interference. If this occurs on strike three in fast
pitch, Rule 8, Section 2F has precedence.

But surely the book wouldn't need to do that. You can determine what hit what pretty easily and even if it did need to, not doing so can't make the rule something it's not.
As a general rule, I think it's a bad thing that there are interpretations that don't match the book. When I go to study the rule book to learn the bat/ball rules, I'm not going to see this, I'm going to see a rule about what hits what and then I have to remember that there's an interpretation that changes the rule. (Which makes this forum a good thing!)
(And if Manny had just believed Mike about RS24, than neither of them would know that it doesn't in fact say that)

My response, whether you believe it or not, was to a specific post, hence the citation.

You want to be rule specific? Then 7.6.K.Exception.2 is not possible

Show me a specific (and unfortunately this part has moved to ASA) rule which states the BR is out specifically for the ball and a discarded bat making contact in fair territory.

I'm not sure if I should be offended or not. :confused: ... :p

I never said I didn't believe Mike. I'm simply asking for clarification for the benefit of all who post or lurk here, and wouldn't know who's a true authority and who's an internet umpire.

The one thing I find different between baseball and softball when it comes to rule interpretations is how thoroughly exhaustive the community is on the small-white-ball side. There are volumes of authoritative documents--the MLB Umpires Manual, the Jaksa/Roder Manual, Wendelstedt's Rules and Interpretations Manual, Carl Childress's Baseball Rules Differences, just to name a few--that parse each and every word in the rule books to cover just about every conceivable situation that could take place on the big diamond. What happens when a pitched ball hits a bird? It's in the MLBUM.

For some reason, the same is not true for softball. Yes, ASA has its rule supplement, and NFHS has a case book, to expand on the rules. And there are the web-based interpretations that come out on occasion on the ASA and NCAA websites. But for the most part, for those situations that are not specifically covered in written materials, we have to depend upon the Steves and Mikes of the world, and what might have been covered in clinics that tend to be nothing more than expert opinions of the clinician (which, in my experience, sometimes end up being wrong).

If it really has been explained ad nauseum in numerous clinics, I'm sorry that I missed it. But if it's really something that has come up that often, then why not put it in writing in the rule books so it doesn't continually get asked?

I'd be willing to bet one of those baseball documents does cover this scenario. :)

Sure... but J/R doesn't always match Wendelstadt's book. The BRD is good but still not exhaustive. MLBUM and J/R disagree on several issues (they've been talked about here ... well... over there on the smallball board). And of course, nevermind that MLB rules and OBR rules, while they match word for word - are unfortunately not the same (see blocking the plate for a start!).

As I understood your post, you were telling Cecil that he could find what he was looking for (written instruction that a ball hitting a moving bat was to be considered the bat hitting the ball regardless of which hit which) in RS24. RS24 doesn't say that which was my point.

As to the rest of what you just wrote, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

7-6-K Exception 2 reads: (in the 2008 book)
When the batter drops the bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair
territory, and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intent to interfere
with the ball.
EFFECT: The ball is live.

This is certainly possible and it's an exception to 7-6-K which is the answer to your other question. (unless that's moved)

So I think mostly what I'm saying is I'm missing something about the whole recent flow of the conversation.

Well, I never said those documents were without fault. :D

If the lead car is going 10 MPH and the trailing car is going 20 MPH and rear-ends the lead car, I don't think we conclude that the lead car "hit" the trail car.

The trail car hit the lead car.

No, my reference was were to go to find the bat to ball, ball to bat note

How can a player who has batted the ball into fair territory still be a batter?

No where, that I can find, in the NCAA softball rules book does it say the bat must be stationary for it to be considered the ball hitting the bat.

Can you find anywhere that it is not considered as the ball hitting the bat if it was not stationary?

The definition of the words hit tends to imply that the thing that moved into the other thing hit it. If a runner is running to first and someone steps in front of her, we say she hit them. And if someone sideswipes her we say they hit her. If they are moving toward each other, we say they hit each other. If the first baseman is running back toward first and the BR is running faster we don't say the first baseman hit the BR.
So you should understand why others are saying that the natural reading of the rule is that. I'm fine with being told that by interpretation we don't rule on it that way, but I'm not okay with the suggestion that the book is ambiguous on this topic.

Again if the bat is moving away from the ball, which is what happened in this situation, and the ball rolls into it how can it be judged as the bat hitting the ball.

According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so. :D

No, just confirmed what Andy has stated earlier that this is how we were trained.

No one is disagreeing that the "bat to ball" argument should not be the case when the bat is moving away, but that isn't how it was interpreted for us over the years.

And the reason for that may simply be the difficulty in the umpiring making that quick a decision on two moving items. And remember, the umpire doesn't have instant replay or necessarily all the proper angles necessary to get it correct on a consistent basis.