Jump to content
  • 0

dead ball


Guest ump
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1408 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

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
16 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

OBR ruling. "A batter is out when..."image.thumb.png.d984c1fdd52f47c6de0a3adfac127e30.png

 

Note that "the ball is alive and in play" as quoted above means "fair foul status is yet to be determined."  The ball will become fair / foul based on where it settles or where it's first touched by a player, or where it passes a base -- just as if the ball had not hit the bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Does it not matter whether there was intent of the batter to hit the ball again with a thrown or dropped bat?

What I mean is there is not enough description on the OP

did the batter toss or drop the bat and the ball rolled back into it or was the ball rolling back and the batter dropped and or tossed it to keep it fair?

me thinks there is more info needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
18 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Does it not matter whether there was intent of the batter to hit the ball again with a thrown or dropped bat?

No, intent doesn't matter.

Bat hits ball = INT.

Ball hits bat = nothing (with bat in fair).

OP said that ball hit bat in fair. That's nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
26 minutes ago, maven said:

No, intent doesn't matter.

Bat hits ball = INT.

Ball hits bat = nothing (with bat in fair).

OP said that ball hit bat in fair. That's nothing.

While intent with placing a bat to affect a fair ball is not addressed in the rule it is addressed in the MLBUM. If the batter tried to use the bat to cause his ball to go foul or stay fair it would be a dead ball, interference and runners return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, maven said:

No, intent doesn't matter.

Bat hits ball = INT.

Ball hits bat = nothing (with bat in fair).

OP said that ball hit bat in fair. That's nothing.

 

I don't believe that.

I think a player being wise could toss a bat on the ground in front of a rolling ball and that is intent to me  purposely causing a redirection or interaction of bat with the ball to me is intent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
27 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

I don't believe that.

I think a player being wise could toss a bat on the ground in front of a rolling ball and that is intent to me  purposely causing a redirection or interaction of bat with the ball to me is intent

You're giving most batters too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 5.35, p. 57):  …If, in the umpire’s judgment, there is intent on the part of a baserunner to interfere with a batted ball (fair or foul) by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to last base legally touched…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

While intent with placing a bat to affect a fair ball is not addressed in the rule it is addressed in the MLBUM. If the batter tried to use the bat to cause his ball to go foul or stay fair it would be a dead ball, interference and runners return.

The challenge was that the OP did not provide enough info, because we can't make a ruling without knowing the batter's intent, which the OP does not mention.

But that challenge is wrong: assuming no intent, we have enough info to make a ruling.

As with most INT, the situation changes when the offense clearly intends to interfere with the ball or a fielder. But that doesn't seem to be relevant here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, maven said:

The challenge was that the OP did not provide enough info, because we can't make a ruling without knowing the batter's intent, which the OP does not mention.

But that challenge is wrong: assuming no intent, we have enough info to make a ruling.

As with most INT, the situation changes when the offense clearly intends to interfere with the ball or a fielder. But that doesn't seem to be relevant here.

Yes, most of us would rule on the OP assuming no intent. But you said intent doesn't matter with a ball hitting a bat in fair territory. The rule only addresses a helmet placed intentionally. The MLBUM clarifies that an intentionally placed or thrown bat would be ruled the same as a helmet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, most of us would rule on the OP assuming no intent. But you said intent doesn't matter with a ball hitting a bat in fair territory. The rule only addresses a helmet placed intentionally. The MLBUM clarifies that an intentionally placed or thrown bat would be ruled the same as a helmet. 

In FED, intent might be the only thing that matters (old references; they might have changed):

8-4-1d. after hitting or bunting a ball, he intentionally contacts the ball with the bat a second time in fair or foul territory. The ball is dead and no runner(s) advance.

1. In the case of a foul ball, it must have a chance to become fair in the umpire's judgment.

2. If the bat and ball accidentally come in contact with each other a second time while the batter is holding the bat in the batter's box, it is a foul ball.

 

But, see also:

8.4.1 SITUATION A: After bunting the ball, B3's bat, which is still in his hand, unintentionally strikes the
ball a second time in fair territory while (a) he is still in the batter's box or (b) he is outside the batter's
box. RULING: In (a), it is a foul ball. In (b), the ball is dead and the batter is out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...