LSU/Texas AM game

[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.

[miller1276]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by miller1276

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter? How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right? I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator. I can, however, appreciate the huge effort it takes to achieve consistency.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter? How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right? I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator. I can, however, appreciate the huge effort it takes to achieve consistency.

Not replying to the hyperbole...

But if consistency is what you're after (and I would agree), then the current interpretation is the only way to achieve it. You and I might not agree with it, but if we go with what others are saying (or what we, ourselves, might say had there been no direction on this at all)... then you have all sorts of in-between situations where both ball and bat are moving that would receive differing rulings by different umpires.

The case that started this - bat moving directly away from ball, ball catching up with and contacting bat - might be straight-forward and achieve near unanimous agreement amongst umpires... but we're dealing with 2 objects possibly moving in different directions and different speeds.

What about a bat moving diagonally away from the ball, but the ball catches up to it.
What about a bat moving perpendicular to the motion of the ball that comes in contact with a moving ball ... how would you judge speed of the bat and ball here, how would you determine if the bat hit the ball or the ball hit the bat - both hit each other.
What about a bat moving very slowly diagonally toward the ball, but the ball moving much faster when they contact each other... bat hit ball? ball hit bat.

What your suggesting would achieve NO consistency. It's not about dumbing down - it's about the fact that we would all have different opinions on identical plays ... which we SHOULD NOT HAVE.

What we're told on this play achieves PERFECT consistency - if the bat is moving - enforce the bat hitting the ball part of the rules. If the bat is not moving - enforce the ball hitting the bat part of the rules. Simple - and consistent across all umpires.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Where does this mentality stop? Should umpires be instructed to call a swing at any movement of the bat by the batter?

Or in the case of the NCAA and NFHS an automatic strike for no movement of the bat.

How about having them consider the ball beating a runner to a base on a tag play as all that's necessary for an out? After all, two moving items right?

Or just ruling INT anytime a retired runner is hit with a throw toward a base in an attempt to play on another runner even if there is no chance of getting an out.

Let's see, did the ball hit the retired runner or did the retired runner hit the ball? Hmmmm....

I'd prefer the interpretation of rules and the concepts of officiating not be dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Yeah, I can see how we wouldn't want the umpire to have to determine if the batter actually tried to contact the ball with the bat or if the runner actually did commit an act of interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.

I get that you're just pokin' me here... but I'd clarify to say that it's not true because Mike or Steve say it is, but rather that Mike or Steve say it is because it's true.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I get that you're just pokin' me here... but I'd clarify to say that it's not true because Mike or Steve say it is, but rather that Mike or Steve say it is because it's true.

Well said !

[falsecut]

Originally Posted by Manny A

According to MD, because Mike and Steve said so.

Yeah, that's nice, I should trust Mike and Steve. Which screen names are they? Since people don't always sign their names on their posts, this isn't really clear.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by falsecut

Yeah, that's nice, I should trust Mike and Steve. Which screen names are they? Since people don't always sign their names on their posts, this isn't really clear.

Irish and Atl