The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 37
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
As soon as I saw Mike's post, I knew your response would be something like this.

The book doesn't parse out a difference between cases when both the ball and bat are still in motion when they touch. No "Do this when the ball is moving faster than the bat, but Do something else if the bat is moving faster than the ball". No "Do something completely different if the bat happens to be moving away from the ball instead of toward it".

If a moving bat and a ball collide - rule accordingly.
If the bat is not moving and the ball hits it, rule nothing.
This is not new.

From your other posts, I have assumed you are not an internet umpire - sounds like you work JUCO and HS, as well as ASA. It's completely inconceivable to me that this has not been discussed ad nauseum in nearly every clinic you've attended. I've probably seen this explained upward of 40 times. But if it turns out you are an internet umpire (this applies to any of you that are - not just talking to Manny here).

For God's sake, if Mike or Steve tells you something --- BELIEVE IT. You're not going to get a more correct response than from them ... and that includes the vast majority of your clinicians.
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)
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
(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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:19pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
As soon as I saw Mike's post, I knew your response would be something like this.

The book doesn't parse out a difference between cases when both the ball and bat are still in motion when they touch. No "Do this when the ball is moving faster than the bat, but Do something else if the bat is moving faster than the ball". No "Do something completely different if the bat happens to be moving away from the ball instead of toward it".

If a moving bat and a ball collide - rule accordingly.
If the bat is not moving and the ball hits it, rule nothing.
This is not new.

From your other posts, I have assumed you are not an internet umpire - sounds like you work JUCO and HS, as well as ASA. It's completely inconceivable to me that this has not been discussed ad nauseum in nearly every clinic you've attended. I've probably seen this explained upward of 40 times. But if it turns out you are an internet umpire (this applies to any of you that are - not just talking to Manny here).

For God's sake, if Mike or Steve tells you something --- BELIEVE IT. You're not going to get a more correct response than from them ... and that includes the vast majority of your clinicians.
I'm not sure if I should be offended or not. ...

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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
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!).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:05pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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!).
Well, I never said those documents were without fault.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 04:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
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.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
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.
No, my reference was were to go to find the bat to ball, ball to bat note

Quote:

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.
How can a player who has batted the ball into fair territory still be a batter?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:45pm.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller1276 View Post
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 bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:15am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller1276 View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Texas - ASU game 3 MD Longhorn Baseball 181 Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:50pm
Texas v. Nebraska end of game john_faz Football 40 Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:14am
Did anyone see the end of the A&M vs Texas game tonight. mightyvol Basketball 50 Fri Mar 02, 2007 04:55pm
Texas Game SamFanboy Basketball 12 Mon Mar 29, 2004 09:49am
MSU vs. Texas game Zebra1 Basketball 4 Mon Mar 31, 2003 03:20pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1