Jump to content
  • 0
Guest GiantsFan2029

Bat throw on dropped third strike

Question

Guest GiantsFan2029

Ill try and keep this sort and sweet.

Swinging third strike.  Catcher misses the ball and the ball bounces infront of home plate.  as the batter realizes the drop thrid strikes, He release his bat, with momentum as the catcher is moving from his crouch to towards the mound.  the bat hits the catchers shin guards as he is moving forward.  the batter still has not not cleared the batters box.  the catcher is able to keep his feet and make a throw to first, but it is over thrown and the player is safe at first and advances to second.

Ive read there is no rule where a batter is OUT from a thrown bat.  He can be warned or ejected.  ...... but is there an interferance call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

If the catcher was hindered in his ability to field the dropped third strike, the batter is out for interference. 

Reading your post, it sounds like the catcher was able to field the drop third strike and throw to first without being hindered by the thrown bat. If he simply made a bad throw after being able to field the ball cleanly, that's his fault. The way I read it, I have the batter runner legally reaching 2nd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
Guest GiantsFan2029
47 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

If the catcher was hindered in his ability to field the dropped third strike, the batter is out for interference. 

Reading your post, it sounds like the catcher was able to field the drop third strike and throw to first without being hindered by the thrown bat. If he simply made a bad throw after being able to field the ball cleanly, that's his fault. The way I read it, I have the batter runner legally reaching 2nd. 

Is this a judgement call by the umpire?  Is it the batters responsibility to ensure that the bat is out of the way of the catcher?  As the bat is being tossed towards the ground , clearly in the direction of the back of the plate and it strikes the catcher as he is moving forward, is that still interference.  The catcher was clearly hindered by the bat.   the bat really wasnt thrown as much as it was slammed to the ground.  the catcher just ran into it before it hit the ground.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Guest GiantsFan2029 said:

Is this a judgement call by the umpire?  Is it the batters responsibility to ensure that the bat is out of the way of the catcher?  As the bat is being tossed towards the ground , clearly in the direction of the back of the plate and it strikes the catcher as he is moving forward, is that still interference.  The catcher was clearly hindered by the bat.   the bat really wasnt thrown as much as it was slammed to the ground.  the catcher just ran into it before it hit the ground.   

There's always going to be a judgement element with calls like this. The batter is responsible for not interfering with the catcher, which includes throwing the bat. If the batter simply drops the bat and the catcher trips over it later on, that's most likely nothing. If the catcher was hindered by the batter throwing his bat, that's interference and the batter is out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest GiantsFan2029

I did just find this, which I thinks answers the question:

Rule 5.09(a)(8) Comment (Rule 6.05(h) Comment): If a bat
breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball
or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no
interference called. If a batted ball hits part of a broken bat in
foul territory, it is a foul ball.
If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes
with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference
shall be called, whether intentional or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Guest GiantsFan2029 said:

I did just find this, which I thinks answers the question:

Rule 5.09(a)(8) Comment (Rule 6.05(h) Comment): If a bat
breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball
or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no
interference called. If a batted ball hits part of a broken bat in
foul territory, it is a foul ball.
If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes
with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference
shall be called, whether intentional or not.

No, this covers a bat being thrown on a batted ball. We're talking about potential interference on a dropped third strike, which I think would be somewhere in rule 6. Under whichever rule covers interference and obstruction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Stk004 said:

No, this covers a bat being thrown on a batted ball. We're talking about potential interference on a dropped third strike, which I think would be somewhere in rule 6. Under whichever rule covers interference and obstruction. 

The applicable sentence ("If a whole bat is thrown...") is not restricted to a batted ball, but I agree that context suggests that restriction. However, in this play we have a batter-runner and a ball in play, even though not technically batted. Pro baseball has moved to an expansive reading of this kind of play, where it's all about the hindrance. Negligent bat throwing qualifies.

Yes, we can have INT here (the rule defines INT in terms of the thrown bat hindering a fielder), and yes, it is a judgment call (the umpire must rule on hindrance). No, the batter is not prohibited from throwing his bat.

6 hours ago, Guest GiantsFan2029 said:

The catcher was clearly hindered by the bat.   the bat really wasnt thrown as much as it was slammed to the ground.  the catcher just ran into it before it hit the ground.

As described, I'd have nothing on that. As I'm picturing it, "slammed to the ground" = vigorous dropping, not throwing, of the bat. The bat is going to end up on the ground, I'm fairly sure, and the fact that F2 stumbled on a bat on the ground is not INT. The prohibited hindrance is the throwing, not the mere existence of the bat.

Mechanics: we've made a ruling, so we need to communicate it. Signal safe, verbalize, "that's nothing!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest GiantsFan2029d
7 hours ago, Stk004 said:

If the catcher was hindered in his ability to field the dropped third strike, the batter is out for interference. 

Reading your post, it sounds like the catcher was able to field the drop third strike and throw to first without being hindered by the thrown bat. If he simply made a bad throw after being able to field the ball cleanly, that's his fault. The way I read it, I have the batter runner legally reaching 2nd. 

 

5 minutes ago, maven said:

The applicable sentence ("If a whole bat is thrown...") is not restricted to a batted ball, and it would govern this situation. I will add that pro baseball has moved to an expansive reading of this kind of play, where it's all about the hindrance. Negligent bat throwing qualifies.

Yes, we can have INT here (the rule defines INT in terms of the thrown bat hindering a fielder), and yes, it is a judgment call (the umpire must rule on hindrance). No, the batter is not prohibited from throwing his bat.

As described, I'd have nothing on that. As I'm picturing it, "slammed to the ground" = vigorous dropping, not throwing, of the bat. The bat is going to end up on the ground, I'm fairly sure, and the fact that F2 stumbled on a bat on the ground is not INT. The prohibited hindrance is the throwing, not the mere existence of the bat.

Mechanics: we've made a ruling, so we need to communicate it. Signal safe, verbalize, "that's nothing!"

 

6 hours ago, Stk004 said:

No, this covers a bat being thrown on a batted ball. We're talking about potential interference on a dropped third strike, which I think would be somewhere in rule 6. Under whichever rule covers interference and obstruction. 

Thanks fellas - Always a pleasure on there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

99.9% of the time this is going to be "nothing."  The bat is going to end up on the ground, and the defense are the  ones who failed to catch the pitch.

 

Now, if I see BR look at F2 and "time" the throw to hinder, or if the ball is up either line and the bat heads in that direction, or the bat goes more horizontally than vertically, ... we might have something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, noumpere said:

if I see BR look at F2 and "time" the throw to hinder, or if the ball is up either line and the bat heads in that direction

These would be evidence of intentional INT.

28 minutes ago, noumpere said:

the bat goes more horizontally than vertically

This could be unintentional, but is perhaps the one more common at lower levels.

The challenging cases are the ones that are unintentional but clearly result in hindrance.

We could try a philosophy similar to the bat contacting a fair ball:

  • F2 steps on or contacts bat = nothing (even with hindrance — F2 needs to avoid the bat, which is somewhere on every play)
  • bat contacts F2 + hindrance = likely INT

[I add "likely" as a weasel word: I'm sure someone can envision a case where the bat goes at F2 and hinders him, yet it's not INT.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×