LSU/Texas AM game

[RKBUmp]

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.

[UmpireErnie]

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".

[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.