Thrown Bat strikes Catcher

[cemyster]

12U game.  Fed rules.

VT batting in top of 7^th, trailing by 8 runs. Two outs.  R3 and R2.  Batter hits two hopper to 3^rd, throws bat into catcher.  Strikes him hard on bicep and shoulder.  Catcher starts walking towards dugout holding shoulder and called for the coach twice.  Ball bounces past F5.  R3 heading home, R2 about to round 3^rd.  I kill the play for the thrown bat, and the catcher not being able to participate in play.  Calling batter out.  I said it was for throwing the bat, figuring people would understand that.  Really I had him throwing the bat, causing injury and F2 not being able to participate in the play due to interference from thrown bat.

 

Coach comes out to argue, I explain that the batter is out but I didn't go into interference explanation.  Just explaining that the catcher was injured on the play due to the thrown bat.  They were upset, and that was the last out of the game.  Coach kept demanding I show him in the rulebook where I can do that.  I just said the batter is out, and the game was over, and left quickly.

 

So was Fed rule 7.3.6 a stretch in this case?  Should I have called delayed dead, let the play continue and then warn?

 

Thanks!

[catsbackr]

You answered your own question.  You made up a rule.

[scrounge]

I think you messed that one up. 7.3.6 states:

 

ART. 6 . . . If the bat breaks and is hit by the ball or hits a runner or a fielder, no interference shall be called. If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called.

PENALTY: The batter is out and runners return. If, in the umpire's judgment, ­interference prevented a possible double play, two players may be ruled out.

 

Did you judge the catcher to be attempting a play at the time the bat hit him? It doesn't sound like it. Just from my reading, sounds like you interpreted it as a thrown bat preventing the catcher from possibly participating in some future play, but the thrown bat did not interfere with a defensive player attempting a play at the time.

 

I think at worst you have a 3.3.1.c violation, careless throwing of a bat. Delayed dead ball, warn or eject at the end of playing action.

 

I get what you're probably feeling, you saw something that looked like an injustice and stretched something to fit what your gut said was 'right'. But it didn't have rule support.

[umpcoachfather]

I'm torn; due to the age of the players and our need to be vigilant when it comes to player safety at that level, and spirit of the game.  If a player carelessly throws a bat and takes out a defensive player, I'm not sure how I would have reacted.  I may have killed it also, not sure.  God at 12 you would hope all the coaches would agree, but we know how they are.  Could you have rule 9'ed them here?

[scrounge]

I'm torn; due to the age of the players and our need to be vigilant when it comes to player safety at that level, and spirit of the game.  If a player carelessly throws a bat and takes out a defensive player, I'm not sure how I would have reacted.  I may have killed it also, not sure.  God at 12 you would hope all the coaches would agree, but we know how they are.  Could you have rule 9'ed them here?

 

If a young child is seriously hurt, I'm fine killing the play. Take care of the kid. But that still doesn't mean that rules should be made up to 'fix' a situation that is already addressed in the rules. For FED, there already is a rule about careless throwing of bats and the penalty is clear and specified.

[Mike Prince]

 

I'm torn; due to the age of the players and our need to be vigilant when it comes to player safety at that level, and spirit of the game.  If a player carelessly throws a bat and takes out a defensive player, I'm not sure how I would have reacted.  I may have killed it also, not sure.  God at 12 you would hope all the coaches would agree, but we know how they are.  Could you have rule 9'ed them here?

 

If a young child is seriously hurt, I'm fine killing the play. Take care of the kid. But that still doesn't mean that rules should be made up to 'fix' a situation that is already addressed in the rules. For FED, there already is a rule about careless throwing of bats and the penalty is clear and specified.

 

 

Agree, but by what is posted here I am not judging this injury to be serious.

 

IMO, you can kill it when one of two things happen - 1) the player is truly injured seriously - obvious broken bone or traumatic injury, a ball to the chest or head area, etc. or 2) he is incapacitated to the point where he cannot by himself avoid the risk of further injury from a play happening around him.  Neither of these are satisfied in this scenario.

[sdix00]

I can see killing the play for safety reasons; FED gets it right on this.

But there is no interference if F2 would have nothing to do with the initial play. Kill it after the defense fails to retire the BR and put the runners where they would have advanced.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[mstaylor]

I am not one for killing plays on injuries, not absolute, but here it took out the catcher with no real possibility for another to cover. I would keep it live up to the point where the play is going to come back to the plate, kill it and freeze the runners. Most injuries are not bad enough to cause killing the play, shots to the head, obvious broken bones and a few others, kill it. 

[noumpere]

 Could you have rule 9'ed them here?

Sometimes you can use 9.01© but this is an instance of using 9.01(msu)