BR Throws Bat - Hits Throw

[noumpere]

Heard about this in FLA.  LH batter takes ball four and tosses bat toward his third base dugout.  In the meantime, F2 throws toward F5 to get R2 who is stealing on the pitch.  Bat and ball meet.  No intent on batter's part.  Ball ends up in the dugout.

 

NCAA Ruling?

 

FED has the batter out according to case 7-3-5 I (that's a capital "eye").

 

I'm away from OBR reference materials, but I think I can get to them in the morning, but I'm not sure they cover this.

[BuckeyeMike]

NCAA: same as Fed EXCEPT: NCAA requires the bat must be thrown into "fair territory."  7-11n.   PENALTY: Batter out; runners return TOP.

Ref: The 2014 BRD, 313.

 

Edited to add:  In OBR, bat can be thrown in either fair OR FOUL and it's the same ruling as above.

[Rich Ives]

I'd be surprised if that actually happened more than once every five years or so.

[Jimurray]

I'd be surprised if that actually happened more than once every five years or so.

I'll be ready when it does. No I meant I would have nailed it when it happened.

[noumpere]

MLBUM:

6.14 THROWN BALL STRIKES HELMET OR BAT

If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on the part of the runner to

interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet

or bat.

If, in the umpire's judgment, there is intent on the part of a runner to interfere with a thrown ball

by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner is out, the ball

dead, and runners return to the last base legally touched.

[bam]

Gonna have to check with Carl on the BRD interp......

[BuckeyeMike]

That's what I referenced in post #2 above.  Case 313 in the 2014 BRD: Interference by: Equipment: Bat Thrown.

 

I'm not sure why it's not lining up with noumpere's MLBUM reference.   ?? 

[noumpere]

That's what I referenced in post #2 above.  Case 313 in the 2014 BRD: Interference by: Equipment: Bat Thrown.

 

I'm not sure why it's not lining up with noumpere's MLBUM reference.   ?? 

That play is (reasonably) the same as the OP?

 

Someone else told me that the BRD doesn't address this (which, I guess, might be interpreted as there being no difference so the FED rule applies)

[BuckeyeMike]

You know, good question.  The more I read this BRD interp, the more I think it's referencing losing your grip on the bat and accidentally "throwing" it. 

 

Your MLBUM reference specifically references a thrown ball and fits the OP to a T......so I think we gotta go by that.  

 

FWIW, I would not have thought that this was a "play on" situation (even if not intentional).  

 

Edited to add:  OI 293-289 under BRD Section 289 states:  WENDELSTEDT: After ball four, a batter becomes a runner.  Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher's throw must be intentional for interference to be called. (email to cc, 7/13/12)

[noumpere]

 

 

Edited to add:  OI 293-289 under BRD Section 289 states:  WENDELSTEDT: After ball four, a batter becomes a runner.  Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher's throw must be intentional for interference to be called. (email to cc, 7/13/12)

Most references like that are referring to the batter crossing in front of the catcher and interfering with the throw.  So, I'm not sure they apply (nor, to be fair, and I sure they don't)