Jump to content
  • 0

Bat throw on dropped third strike


Guest GiantsFan2029
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1788 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

20 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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.   

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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!"

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Bren

I had one last night, the catcher dropped the 3rd strike, batter took off to first threw the bat into fair territory in front of the plate, the loose ball bouncing towards the mound hit the bat changing direction and heading back foul causing the catcher to be unable to make a play. Should be interference I would think on that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 minutes ago, Guest Bren said:

I had one last night, the catcher dropped the 3rd strike, batter took off to first threw the bat into fair territory in front of the plate, the loose ball bouncing towards the mound hit the bat changing direction and heading back foul causing the catcher to be unable to make a play. Should be interference I would think on that one?

No. The question of INT turns on hindering the fielder, not on contacting the ball. Provided ball hit bat (as described), that's nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Scenario... 

Batter swings and misses a dropped 3rd strike. Batter drops the bat while in the batters box and runs to 1st. The ball, in foul territory makes contact with the dropped bat (also in foul territory). What's the call? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 minutes ago, Guest Mike said:

Scenario... 

Batter swings and misses a dropped 3rd strike. Batter drops the bat while in the batters box and runs to 1st. The ball, in foul territory makes contact with the dropped bat (also in foul territory). What's the call? 

 

That’s nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 3/16/2017 at 11:50 AM, noumpere said:

 

 

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.

Ah, the Machado school of how to play baseball. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thank you... somehow the umpire was convinced by the other team, that this was some rule and the hitter/runner was called out due to the ball contacting the bat in foul territory. I was very confused at this unheard of rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 hours ago, Guest Mike said:

Thank you... somehow the umpire was convinced by the other team, that this was some rule and the hitter/runner was called out due to the ball contacting the bat in foul territory. I was very confused at this unheard of rule. 

if the batter had done more than drop the bat (ie throw/toss/roll) and the bat made contact with the ball, that's a different call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Mike
On 4/25/2019 at 11:34 AM, stkjock said:

if the batter had done more than drop the bat (ie throw/toss/roll) and the bat made contact with the ball, that's a different call. 

What is the call? I still don't think there is a rule unless it was thought that there was intent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Sarcasm Alert
On 3/16/2017 at 12:12 PM, Rich Ives said:

I guess the batter will just have to carry the bat around the bases. Don't want to risk an interference call. :)

 

What if he is taped to the bat?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...