LSU/Texas AM game
 

Batter called out in top of 7th for bat hitting ball a second time. Am I missing something in the rule, seems to me the NCAA rule reads the same as other organizations. Bat hits ball, batter out. Ball hits bat, live ball play on.

Slapper chopped one up 1st baseline, drops bat and bat ends up in front of ball and is rolling toward 1st. Ball is also rolling toward first, catches bat and hits bat. Umpires confer, plate umpire goes to LSU coach and clearly tells her bat was still moving, thats is an out.

We have no NCAA ball here.. so I was thinking this was something written differently in their rule book since PU clearly states that it was becuase the bat was still moving. Interestingly enough, the PU initially had made a definitive "fair ball" signal when the ball touched the bat. So did she simply not notice that the bat was still moving and got that information from her partners and changed the call based on that new info?

The bat was moving, but it was moving AWAY from the ball. The ball was moving faster and caught up to it. It seems a clear case of "ball hitting the bat" and under ASA and NFHS rules I would have gone with no interference, fair ball, play on. And I would have signalled just at PU did to say "yes, I saw the ball hit the bat..it's a fair ball".

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.

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.

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.

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. :o

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.

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.

While I agree with the belief it shouldn't be, that has been the interpretation in ASA for a while, at least this regime.

I agree, that if the ball is catching up to the bat, the bat is not causing the contact, but that isn't the way it has been interpreted.

Ball hits bat means a STATIONARY bat... in all codes... at least right now.

I'm having trouble knowing where to find documentation or a rule cite that says EITHERr:

Ball hits bat means a STATIONARY bat... in all codes

OR

if both the bat and ball are moving, then you have the bat hitting the ball and a dead ball.
(regardless of direction)

For ASA you can find it in RS 24.B

Sorry for being a pain, but unless it has changed, my electronic version of an ASA rule book (dated 2008) doesn't reference the bat's status as being stationary. It simply states in general terms the difference between a bat hitting a ball and vice versa.

The same is the case with the examples listed in the NCAA rule book:
Hitting the Ball a Second Time
Batter Bat Batted Ball Effect
In box In hands Fair or foul Foul ball
Out of box In hands Fair Batter out
Out of box In hands Foul (accidental) Foul ball
Out of box In hands Foul (intentional) Batter out
In/out of box Out of hands (ball hits bat) Fair Live
In/out of box Out of hands (ball hits bat) Foul Foul ball
In/out of box Out of hands (bat hits ball) Fair Batter out
In/out of box Out of hands (bat hits ball) Foul (accidental) Foul ball
In/out of box Out of hands (bat hits ball) Foul (intentional) Batter out

So, other than in interpretations that I assume are given in clinics, I don't see anything that talks of the bat rolling away from the ball, but the ball catching up and contacting the bat before the bat becomes stationary.

(Edited to add) Sorry how it looks on screen. I tried to add spaces between the column entries...

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.