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.

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.

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)

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.

I'm not sure if I should be offended or not. :confused: ... :p

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. :)

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!).

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.

Well, I never said those documents were without fault. :D

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.

No, my reference was were to go to find the bat to ball, ball to bat note

How can a player who has batted the ball into fair territory still be a batter?

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 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.

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. :D

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.

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 ! :cool:

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.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that many, if not most, rule sets include a section which notes that if the player discards the bat in a manner which prevents the defense from making a play.

Doesn't mention movement, direction or even whether the effect would be of the ball, defender or both, just that it can be INT.

I don't consider it dummying down a rule, just locking down a specific point to which all can relate.

I can't argue with this statement. Hyperbole didn't require a response.

I don't necessarily have an issue with this particular interpretation, only the reasoning given for coming up with it.

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

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....:rolleyes:

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.

Mike - I think you took my criticism to be directed towards ASA. Not so this time. :) Things have been dumbed down in college in the last 3-4 years IMO. NFHS as a national presence for training umpires seems non-existent. I agree with your points BTW.

Ok. Here is my question to NCAA rules editor:

If the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball, which is moving faster, rolls into it. Should it be ruled the ball hitting the bat or the bat hitting the ball?


Here is her response:

As you wrote, the ball rolled into the bat. You have answered your own question:)

Dee Abrahamson
NCAA Softball Secretary Rules Editor
[email protected]


So the ruling is if the bat is rolling away from the ball and the ball rolls into it, it remains live.

Not really. I think the entire game has been dummied down by everyone at every level. And that is all I was pointing out. Those two issues just happened to be conveniently fresh in my mind.

[rant]
As I had pointed out recently on another site, instead of people electing to play a game or sport, they are now electing to join a group and have the game change to accommodate them. Much like the city folk who move to a rural area to get away from the rat race, but expect the 300 year old farming industry to adjust their ways of doing things because they do not care for the environment into which elected to move.

Softball has gone the same route. The FP has turned into a business of showcasing. The adult game has died in many, if not most parts of the country. The SP game has supplanted the FP game for adults, simply because it is not as demanding or time consuming. And the competition level has gone down, down, down as being the best at the lowest possible level has supplanted any pride or desire to change competition and raise the level of your game.

When I was growing up, you played ball to compete, to grow, to see who can be best. In today's world, people play for different reasons, but getting that championship trophy seems to have become a residual effect of the games being played today. Unfortunately, in an effort to reach those goals seem easier, the people promoting their specific game have manipulated many of the rules to the point that, IMO, the game is not the same. Same with the equipment. The "I should be able to use the new technology that creates the best equipment" argument would almost be acceptable if that technology affected 100% of the game, not just the offense's portion.

And while you don't particularly care for some of the reasons, they are what they are and there isn't much that umpires can do about it.

Call the rules as presented and you are an over-officious jerk according to the coaches and bystanders. Let certain things slide and you are a homer or a GAGA. If those were my only two choices, I would go with the OOJ because as umpires, we are being paid to officiate the game in accordance to the rules THE TEAMS have agreed to play by. Not the umpires, the teams. Umpires don't make the rules and are often ignored when there is an effort to offer input. We can try to explain them, massage them to a point of consistent application or just sit back and say, "screw you, this is what you asked for". Well, the massaging and explanation is the officiating corps' most effective way to try and keep the game from getting out of hand and still being able to find people willing to take part as officials.

[/rant]

Guess my point is that the mentality and reasoning we are offered is a direct effect of the game changing and our ability to explain to the umpire why we have to adjust with it.

Again, JMO

But.....Mike or Steve didn't say it?? :confused:

Actually, Mike did say it in post #10

Don't ask an NCAA rules editor for an ASA interpretation ... or vice versa!

Steve hasn't responded, because Steve, like Mike, agrees with Dee. But that hasn't been how ASA has taught it as the schools.

I am reminded of a conversation ingrained in my memory forever, circa 1998, or so; I sat with the late Merle Butler, ASA Director of Umpires and his Deputy Director, Henry Pollard, enjoying a cold adult beverage after assisting with an ASA National School, and asked them how could they justify the slowpitch rule that a ball that touched any part of the plate had to be a ball.

I reminded them of the earlier years, when the legal arc was different heights, and even unlimited for a while; and that they teach the strike zone as a column of smoke, and if any part of the ball touched any part of the smoke, that was a strike. Well, it was on three sides with this rule (left, right, and back), but NOT if it hit the front edge and then touched the plate.

The two looked at each other and grinned, and (as was often the case), Henry spoke for both of them. He said they were happy I asked that question, because it meant I really did understand how to call the arc in slowpitch; and that if I asked good questions like that, etc., etc. BUT, they felt they had to put that rule in the book because the vast majority of umpires, and an even higher percentage of players and coaches, didn't really grasp the column of smoke and arc relationship, and there was absolutely no consistency in how balls and strikes were called. Not just in local league play, but at ASA Nationals there were too many inconsistencies.

They could give camps, clinics, and schools, but realized they couldn't affect the absolute inconsistency. And the one symbol of inconsistency was an inability to make people understand that a pitch with a reasonable arc could be at the knees at the front of the plate and still hit the back of the plate and be a strike, while other pitches that hit the plate were balls. For the good of the game, they dealt with the one thing they could; any ball (even a strike!!) that hit the plate would be a ball by rule.

Ironic that the next "dummy-down" effort to address the inability to understand how to call the arc, mat ball, does the opposite, and balls that hit the plate in that version are strikes!!

To my point, I guess; this is another interpretation that I am certain was the result of attempting to minimize inconsistency. To an umpire smart enough to realize and argue the point, of course it isn't what the rule says. As Dee says, you answered your own question.

But it is what was taught to attempt to secure consistency from the masses. I would be interested to see how KR would rule if the question was newly posed to ASA, as he has often changed the "old" rulings.

While we are walking down memory lane with Merle & Henry, lets continue in the PLATE and the edging. Steve's assessment above is the same here. Standard response to a question concerning the beveled edges of the plate were like the hands to the bat issue: If you pick up the plate, does the beveled edge come with it?

The issue with the plate was confounded by the fact that while all home plates had a given dimension, there were quite a few different designs and models. They come with no beveled edges, separate footing with the edges into which the slab of white rubbers fits, solid white rubber plates with beveled edges outside the dimensions and some where the beveled edges were included in the dimensions, plates with a sharp angled edge and plates with soft angled edge. Some of the edges were only 1/2" outside of the plate, some were more than an inch outside of that footprint. Even saw plates made of wood (tournament in RI) with no edging.

Then you have plates plated in the ground, attached to a wood/concrete box under the surface, hammered into the ground or just laid on top of the dirt. Some where the edges are covered, some where they are not.

IOW, the plate itself lacked consistency and with most of the angles on the edges, if the umpire could tell the whether the ball hit the black or white part or the top of the plate or beveled side, s/he shouldn't be umpiring, but working for NASA, calibrating the Hubble Telescope.

And now, with stealing in slow pitch, some of these pitches shoot in every which direction and the catcher wouldn't have a prayer of holding the runners.

So, for a matter of consistency and giving catchers a chance, any ball hitting any part of the plate, EVEN IN FP, the ball is dead. The weird part is that all those who complained about that 20 years ago are now cheering it because, as Steve noted, with the mat, it is a strike. I know of pitchers which practice their effort to hit the front edge of the plate for a strike :eek:

I don't think it is dead in NFHS FP.

I apologize, that was too much a generalization. The ball is dead in SP, just cannot be a strike in FP

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