Drag bunt...

[default]

Batter drag bunts from left and drops bat behind her as she takes off. Ball rolls into the bat in fair territory. Is the batter out or not?

 

[default]

ball rolls into bat ...Ok.... bat rolls into ball ..... out

rule change a couple of years ago..

 

[default]

I thought it was up to the umpire as to whether it was intentional or not.

 

[default]

You're both right...to some extent. ?

The batter is out for interference if her discarded bat hits her batted ball (ie: bat hits ball).

If the bat is not moving and the ball hits it (ie: ball hits bat), that is not a violation- with one possible exception!

The umpire could judge that the batter discrded her bat to purposely put it in the path of the ball. In that case, it is possible for the bat to be lying still, have the ball roll into it and still have interference.

So, the "ball hits bat/bat hit ball" axiom works most of the time, but not all of the time, because of that one rare exception.

Other freaky stuff to consider for batted balls and discarded bats colliding:

- If the bat and ball make contact over foul ground, and it is not ruled interference, the ball is immediately dead and it is a foul ball. A bat lying in foul ground is treated as "an object not natural to the field", like a fence or wall.

- If the bat and ball make contact over fair ground, and it is not ruled interference, the ball is not automatically fair. A bat lying on fair ground is treated as "a natural part of the field", like a pebble or dirt clod. The "fair/foul" determination is made depending on where the ball is first touched by a player, eventually rolls to or settles.

- If the bat hits the ball over foul ground, and the umpire judges that the ball had a chance to become fair (like on a ball rolling along the foul line or heading toward fair ground), he can rule interference just like if the bat hit the ball over fair ground.

- The bat/ball contact must be made with a "whole" bat for all these rules to apply. If a bat is broken, the broken bat is considered as "a natural part of the playing field" and interference cannot be called.

 

[default]

You are a crazy rule nut Bretman!

I love it

Thanks

 

[default]

I'm confused yet understand - I think! :-?

I think based on what bretman said that the girl did not intentionally place the bat (she dropped it behind her and could not even see where the ball or bat were at), bat was not moving, ball rolled into bat. ?But in the umpire's opionion, he judged that she intentionally placed it because he called interference and batter out.

Was a little confused but think I got it now.

Thanks so much!

 

[default]

Or, maybe...It was the umpire that was confused and just ruled any bat/ball contact as interference. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen one of those ruled incorrectly.

Very hard-to-impossible to know what that umpire saw and how he judged it. This can be a tough call to make on the field and an even tougher call to make on the internet!

One thing to keep in mind- the batter has the option of discarding her bat an almost unlimited distance and anywhere within a 360 degree range of direction. If she chooses to drop it into the path of the rolling ball, it tips the scales of judging "intent" into the defense's favor.

The "ball hits bat" definition is designed to cover plays where the ball takes an odd hop or has a lot of backspin and changes direction to hit the bat. If you drop the bat right in the path of a batted ball that is rolling straight, you open yourself up to a possible interference call and that call is strictly umpire judgment.