FED: Bat hits ball a second time

[UmpTTS43]

I believe in FED there has to be intent on part of the batter to interfere when the bat contacts the ball.

No.

The only mention of intent is if the "BR intentionally deflects a foul ball that has a chance of becoming fair" (7-4-1i).

I guess I misinterpreted 8-4-1d and caseplay 2.5.1 Situation E.

On second thought. I didn't. I stand by my assertion that there must be intent to get an out for a batter dropping the bat, then the bat making contact with the ball.

[LMSANS]

I believe in FED there has to be intent on part of the batter to interfere when the bat contacts the ball.

No.

The only mention of intent is if the "BR intentionally deflects a foul ball that has a chance of becoming fair" (7-4-1i).

I guess I misinterpreted 8-4-1d and caseplay 2.5.1 Situation E.

On second thought. I didn't. I stand by my assertion that there must be intent to get an out for a batter dropping the bat, then the bat making contact with the ball.

I sit corrected. The reference to 8-4-1d is more on point than my reference, I agree, intent has to be there for FED.

[Astrosdawg07]

So am I reading this correct/right; FED there has to be intent. OBR intent or no intent its an out?

[mstaylor]

I am corrected. I have always called it the same. For the guys that have a BRD, check it and see what Carl says on the difference. If I am indeed wrong then it should have a reference in his book.

[Pops]

So am I reading this correct/right; FED there has to be intent. OBR intent or no intent its an out?

I'm glad we have clarified the rule for Fed. And Case Book 2.5.1 E is pretty clear.

Switching back to OBR, I'm looking at 6.05h and in the comment section it mentions a "broken bat" in fair territory. Play continues. Why would this be different than an "unintentionally thrown bat" where the batter is out? Shouldn't these rules be consistent?

[ukce1861]

That's the great thing about this forum. Because I seriously doubt I ever would've noticed the difference (even though it's as plain as day) without it being pointed out...

Switching back to OBR, I'm looking at 6.05h and in the comment section it mentions a "broken bat" in fair territory. Play continues. Why would this be different than an "unintentionally thrown bat" where the batter is out? Shouldn't these rules be consistent?

My thoughts on why this would be different is once a bat breaks, all bets are off. The batter can't control where the pieces of his bat end up. However, he can control where his whole bat ends up.

[UmpTTS43]

That's the great thing about this forum. Because I seriously doubt I ever would've noticed the difference (even though it's as plain as day) without it being pointed out...

Switching back to OBR, I'm looking at 6.05h and in the comment section it mentions a "broken bat" in fair territory. Play continues. Why would this be different than an "unintentionally thrown bat" where the batter is out? Shouldn't these rules be consistent?

My thoughts on why this would be different is once a bat breaks, all bets are off. The batter can't control where the pieces of his bat end up. However, he can control where his whole bat ends up.

Agree.

[Welpe]

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I was researching this exact issue for NFHS and was coming to the same conclusion as what UmpTT was saying. The case play is pretty clear that intent is required for a BR to be out if a discarded bat hits a ball in fair territory. Can somebody with the BRD confirm that this is a documented difference between FED and OBR?