LSU/Texas AM game

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

(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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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

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?

[miller1276]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by miller1276

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?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.