Another strange one, from a friend

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Seems to me that all equipment listed by rule number right after the rule--1-4 (gloves/mitts), 1-5 (bats), 1-6 (helmets) and 1-7 (catcher's gear)--is considered required.

If you really want to play that game, where does it say a batter can't use TWO bats while batting? Would you allow it?

Hmmm.... the rule you cited (and, I assume, correctly quoted... didn't look it up to confirm) says "legal and/or required"

"and/or"

IOW, if they must use all required equipment, and if they use equipment (required or not) it must be legal.

No where does it state (nor would I infer) that all legal equipment is required to be used.

But, no point making a federal case out of what was basically a joke!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hmmm.... the rule you cited (and, I assume, correctly quoted... didn't look it up to confirm) says "legal and/or required"

"and/or"

IOW, if they must use all required equipment, and if they use equipment (required or not) it must be legal.

No where does it state (nor would I infer) that all legal equipment is required to be used.

But, no point making a federal case out of what was basically a joke!

More like all equipment used is required to be legal.

BTW, the warmed bats do not stay warm that long. For that matter, I doubt there was any positive effect on the bat whatsoever as it was a generally heated area within the can, not something restricting the heat to the bat with a wrap or directly propelled heat.

The bat probably wasn't warmed as much as it just wasn't as cold as it should have been.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Seems to me that all equipment listed by rule number right after the rule--1-4 (gloves/mitts), 1-5 (bats), 1-6 (helmets) and 1-7 (catcher's gear)--is considered required.

If you really want to play that game, where does it say a batter can't use TWO bats while batting? Would you allow it?

Don't each of those rules specify that it is required if it is actually required to be used.

A Catcher shall wear....

A batter shall wear a batting helmet.....

All fielders shall .....

Nowhere that I can find does it say a batter shall enter the batters box with a legal bat.

Yes, it does seem like strange wording, but in a legal sense, it doesn't say a batter is required to have a bat with them when they enter the box.

Lord knows, I really hope this never happens.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Don't each of those rules specify that it is required if it is actually required to be used.

A Catcher shall wear....

A batter shall wear a batting helmet.....

All fielders shall .....

Nowhere that I can find does it say a batter shall enter the batters box with a legal bat.

Yes, it does seem like strange wording, but in a legal sense, it doesn't say a batter is required to have a bat with them when they enter the box.

Lord knows, I really hope this never happens.

So, you would allow a batter to bat with two bats then.

This is the kind of thought-processing that a coach would use to argue with an umpire.

Frankly, I wouldn't tolerate a batter who comes up without a bat. If a coach really wanted to push the issue and argue there isn't an outright statement in the rules requiring a batter to use a bat, I would counter with the catch-all in 3-6-13c that says a player will not commit an unsporting act such as "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play." Heck, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that a batter without a bat is taunting the pitcher.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, you would allow a batter to bat with two bats then.

This is the kind of thought-processing that a coach would use to argue with an umpire.

Frankly, I wouldn't tolerate a batter who comes up without a bat. If a coach really wanted to push the issue and argue there isn't an outright statement in the rules requiring a batter to use a bat, I would counter with the catch-all in 3-6-13c that says a player will not commit an unsporting act such as "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play." Heck, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that a batter without a bat is taunting the pitcher.

This won't happen. But Manny's right. Keep it simple folks. If she's got no bat, tell her to get one. If there are no legal bats available, you may order her to bat within the 10 second time frame. But seriously, has ANYONE ever had this happen????

Don't make this harder than it needs to be.

How bout checking the bats in that garbage can in the first place? You mean your friend didn't think it odd?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by LIUmp

This won't happen. But Manny's right. Keep it simple folks. If she's got no bat, tell her to get one. If there are no legal bats available, you may order her to bat within the 10 second time frame. But seriously, has ANYONE ever had this happen????

Don't make this harder than it needs to be.

How bout checking the bats in that garbage can in the first place? You mean your friend didn't think it odd?

From the OP

Team A (visitors) uses a garbage can to store all of their bats (why I don't know). Prior to the game, the coaches pull all the bats out for inspection and they pass inspection and are cold to the touch.

They were inspected, and only after the inspection was the warming devise added to make the bat storage can a warming devise. It was made pretty clear in the OP they were checked and legal prior to the game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I would counter with the catch-all in 3-6-13c that says a player will not commit an unsporting act such as "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play." Heck, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that a batter without a bat is taunting the pitcher.

It would be a HUGE stretch to say that ... after all, you know EXACTLY why the batter is there without a bat - you just tossed them all.

And 3-6-13c is NOT for anything like this situation - although you could use that for the incredibly silly 2-bats situation.