LSU/Texas AM game

[RKBUmp]

From what I read in the NCAA rules, it is a live ball. There is even a chart under the rule listing various play scenarios. One of them lists, batter out of box, bat out of hands, ball hits bat, live ball.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

From what I read in the NCAA rules, it is a live ball. There is even a chart under the rule listing various play scenarios. One of them lists, batter out of box, bat out of hands, ball hits bat, live ball.

Yes, but the rule reads:
11.15.1 Effect: If the bat is out of the batter’s hand(s) (on the ground), the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intent to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is live.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Yes, but the rule reads:
11.15.1 Effect: If the bat is out of the batter’s hand(s) (on the ground), the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intent to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is live.

Im not sure why the but? The chart and wording of the rule show same outcome except for the addition of "intent to interfere". That is not what the umpire said to the coach, she told the coach the bat was still moving that is an out. If that was in fact the basis of their final ruling, it would be a misinterpretation of the rule.

[BretMan]

Nor would the ball automatically become fair when it touched the bat in fair territory, so the fair signal was inappropriate.

Assuming that the bat/ball contact was judged to not be interference, the rule says that the ball remains "live" not that it becomes "fair". The fair/foul status of the ball is still to be determined, depending on where the ball eventually is touched by a player, settles, etc.

Maybe they just blew this one. It seems like the only way they could have an out, if the ball hit the bat instead of the bat hitting the ball, would be if it was judged that the batter had intentionally discarded her bat into the path of the ball.

[Crabby_Bob]

My only point was to highlight the second part of the Effect: and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intent to interfere with the course of the ball. I should have highlighted it.

[Andy]

In ASA play, I have always been taught that if both the bat and ball are moving, then you have the bat hitting the ball and a dead ball, batter out.

NCAA adds the "there was no intent to interfere" which brings a level of umpire judgement into the mix.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

In ASA play, I have always been taught that if both the bat and ball are moving, then you have the bat hitting the ball and a dead ball, batter out.

Well, that's certainly true if the bat and ball are moving towards each other.

But if the bat is moving away from the ball, and the ball hits it because the ball was moving in the same direction but much faster, I don't see how that could be considered a bat hitting the ball.