Another strange one, from a friend

[Manny A]

There is a reference in the NFHS Case Book where an illegal bat is removed from the game "or made to be legal". But in those situations, what made the bats illegal was something that could be fixed by removing tape and pine tar from the bat handles. The question is: When a bat cools back down after being placed in a warmer, does that make it legal again?

The rules are not clear on that. NFHS (and NCAA, by the way) consider warmed bats as altered bats that are structurally changed, which is in the same category as rolled or shaved bats. Frankly, I think that's a ludricous comparison. Structural changes to rolled or shaved bats are permanent in nature. I've never seen anything anywhere that says structural changes to warmed bats stay that way even after being cooled.

But because NFHS lumps warmed bats together with rolled and shaved bats, they leave no recourse to make those bats legal. The one case play in the case book about warmed bats does not say anything about those bats becoming legal once they're cooled off.

So to answer your questions, if a team doesn't have any bats to use, then a forfeit is warranted. What else are you going to do? The other team isn't obliged to provide them with equipment. Serves the team right for putting every one of their bats into their hillbilly bat warmer. And as for game 2 of a DH, they'd better go to the store and buy one bat that hasn't been structurally altered if they want to play.

[MD Longhorn]

Manny raises good points.

However, every game is different. A separate entity. I would not let these bats be "made legal" for game one. However, I would do a bat check again at the beginning of game two. If they are not warm, they are legal.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Manny raises good points.

However, every game is different. A separate entity. I would not let these bats be "made legal" for game one. However, I would do a bat check again at the beginning of game two. If they are not warm, they are legal.

That was my thinking on this. Would those bats be legal in a game played two days later? The umpires likely would not know the bats were in a warmer, and as long as they passed a pregame check that day, they should be legal.

In my opinion, two days later or an hour later really doesn't make a difference, it is a different game.

I know this was a topic of discussion last year as well at one of the associations. Some umpires say it's out for both games, others say if they are legal when you check prior to game two, they are legal for game two because they are two distinct and separate games.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So to answer your questions, if a team doesn't have any bats to use, then a forfeit is warranted. What else are you going to do?

One option is put your lineup in there one at a time and take your chances by BB, HBP or being called out on strikes.

Hell, in a JV game, this would be an interesting bet.
Unless you squeeze your zone....

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

One option is put your lineup in there one at a time and take your chances by BB, HBP or being called out on strikes.

Hell, in a JV game, this would be an interesting bet.
Unless you squeeze your zone....

You have a point. Nowhere in the rules does it say that a batter must entered the batters box with a bat.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

You have a point. Nowhere in the rules does it say that a batter must entered the batters box with a bat.

NFHS Rule 3-6-1: "Team personnel shall wear or use legal and/or required equipment. (1-4, 5, 6, 7; 3-2; 3-5-1)"

Yeah, while the book doesn't outright say the batter must enter the box with a bat, what I highlighted in 3-6-1 certainly implies it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

NFHS Rule 3-6-1: "Team personnel shall wear or use legal and/or required equipment. (1-4, 5, 6, 7; 3-2; 3-5-1)"

Yeah, while the book doesn't outright say the batter must enter the box with a bat, what I highlighted in 3-6-1 certainly implies it.

Yes, but where does it say a bat is required? Required equipment is listed elsewhere - a bat is not one of them. Specifications are layed out as to what a legal bat is vs an illegal one --- but no where is it required.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes, but where does it say a bat is required? Required equipment is listed elsewhere - a bat is not one of them. Specifications are layed out as to what a legal bat is vs an illegal one --- but no where is it required.

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?

[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!

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

One option is put your lineup in there one at a time and take your chances by BB, HBP or being called out on strikes.

Hell, in a JV game, this would be an interesting bet.
Unless you squeeze your zone....

Ha ha! Yeah, there is no rule actually requiring the batter to use a bat! And, I'd bet there would be more than one runner on base in a JV game!

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Ha ha! Yeah, there is no rule actually requiring the batter to use a bat! And, I'd bet there would be more than one runner on base in a JV game!

Depends on the JV game. My games today was two unevenly matched teams (43-0 total score, with the winning team only coming up 4 times to bat). They still would have won without bats in their hands because half the pitches they got were over the catchers head or bounced before the plate. Their pitcher made we wonder what the varsity pitchers at her school were like because she was good.

Today's game was so bad, in the last inning the winning team got a base on balls, and he told his runner just to keep running, knowing she would be thrown out at some point. After two overthrows she scored the final run. Half the outs called were for runners leaving early (intentionally).