You make the call!

[wadeintothem]

R1@ 2B, 1 out, count is 1 ball 2 strikes.

B2 swings and hits the ball, which short-hops F6 and goes into left field. On contact you hear a dull thud as the ball was hit. R1 scores, but misses 3B on the way home. Batter-runner is safe at first and the Off. coach asks for time. His player is crying and injured. Time is granted. Bruising and redness is developing on the top of her middle and index fingers and he requests a runner for BR. Def coach appeals that R1 missed 3B.

Based on the information provided, B2 is safe and R1 is safe unless the umpire to whom the appeal was made concurs that the appeal has merit and rules in favor of the appeal. This inquiry specifically states that R1 is safe. There is a technical basis for appeal as long as it is not a judgment matter. Coach ought to ask the plate umpire whether (s)he agreed that the batter was hit on the finger. If the plate umpire does not think the batter was hit on the finger it's judgment and no appeal since it's unlikely plate umpire will give up the call to a base umpire. If the plate umpire agrees that the batter was hit in the finger it's now a rule matter and an appeal can be made. Per the rules it would be dead ball strike and R1 goes back.

I'm not following you at all...

If the orignal noncall/fair ball call is not reversed, BR is safe and R1 is out on appeal.

A good PU/BU team work together. Typically, we rotate. So one time you are PU, then they are PU. Their is no air of superiority between us. We are our only team out there. If someone had a better look at something, we would definately discuss it and be more than willing to change our call in certain instances.

These instances are typically discussed between us pre-game. It would not include out/safe on a banger play of course (not because of us, but because we are not going to tolerate coaches wanting us to go for help on every bang bang play), but technical issues - pulled foot, missing a base, etc are discussable.

[Bretman]

I'm following what Bill wrote with no problem.

My own comments first:

The first post in this thread doesn't give us enough definite info to make a definite call. Just because the batter has a sore hand, it takes a leap of faith and a big assumption to automatically say the umpire missed a call. I've seen pitches hit the bat first, close to the hands, then rebound and smash a finger. Since the ball is hitting the handle, you can hear a "dull thud" and that is not proof that the ball hit the hands FIRST.

If the ball hit the bat handle first, then hit a finger, the correct call would be "foul ball". The result of the play would be R1 back to second and B2 right back in the box with the same count she had before the pitch (1-2).

Wade, if you want us to discuss a pitch hitting a batter in the hand while swinging, don't make us guess at the call, based on a sound and possible injury, about the one element of this play that is strictly a judgment call and upon which the rest of the ruling depends.

Just tell us it hit her hand!

What Bill is saying is that, until a coach talks to the umpire and pins down his JUDGMENT (ie: did ball hit hands first, or at all?) you have to go with what was called- B2 safe at a first.

Once you get an answer on the judgment, you can follow-up with a question about the rule interpretation.

If the umpire tells you it didn't hit her hand, you're stuck with that judgment. If he tells you it hit her hand after hitting the bat, or something like "the hands are part of the bat", then he has incorrectly interpreted a rule. THAT can be protested.

His other point seems to be about the appeal on R1 for missing third. He's saying that the coach can appeal the miss, but unless the umpire agrees, R1 is not out. Well, yes, that is kind of an obvious statement. For the example play, it flat out states that the runner missed the base, so we don't have any assumptions to make on that point- except that the umpire also saw it and would honor the appeal.

The final result of this play is really a cut-and-dried ruling IF we assume the pitch hit the batter's hand (and nothing else) on the swing. Batter out on strike three for the second out. R1 back to second base as the ball was dead on the hit batter and the runner could not legally advance, so her miss of the base effectively "never happened" and an appeal would be moot.

If the ball hit the bat handle, then the hand, foul ball, with the result already noted.

If the umpire judges that the hand was not hit at all, B2 is safe at first and R1 is out on the missed base appeal. There are now two outs. Bring in the next batter!

[K'SDAD]

I'm following what Bill wrote with no problem.

My own comments first:

The first post in this thread doesn't give us enough definite info to make a definite call. Just because the batter has a sore hand, it takes a leap of faith and a big assumption to automatically say the umpire missed a call. I've seen pitches hit the bat first, close to the hands, then rebound and smash a finger. Since the ball is hitting the handle, you can hear a "dull thud" and that is not proof that the ball hit the hands FIRST.

If the ball hit the bat handle first, then hit a finger, the correct call would be "foul ball". The result of the play would be R1 back to second and B2 right back in the box with the same count she had before the pitch (1-2).

Wade, if you want us to discuss a pitch hitting a batter in the hand while swinging, don't make us guess at the call, based on a sound and possible injury, about the one element of this play that is strictly a judgment call and upon which the rest of the ruling depends.

Just tell us it hit her hand!

What Bill is saying is that, until a coach talks to the umpire and pins down his JUDGMENT (ie: did ball hit hands first, or at all?) you have to go with what was called- B2 safe at a first.

Once you get an answer on the judgment, you can follow-up with a question about the rule interpretation.

If the umpire tells you it didn't hit her hand, you're stuck with that judgment. If he tells you it hit her hand after hitting the bat, or something like "the hands are part of the bat", then he has incorrectly interpreted a rule. THAT can be protested.

His other point seems to be about the appeal on R1 for missing third. He's saying that the coach can appeal the miss, but unless the umpire agrees, R1 is not out. Well, yes, that is kind of an obvious statement. For the example play, it flat out states that the runner missed the base, so we don't have any assumptions to make on that point- except that the umpire also saw it and would honor the appeal.

The final result of this play is really a cut-and-dried ruling IF we assume the pitch hit the batter's hand (and nothing else) on the swing. Batter out on strike three for the second out. R1 back to second base as the ball was dead on the hit batter and the runner could not legally advance, so her miss of the base effectively "never happened" and an appeal would be moot.

If the ball hit the bat handle, then the hand, foul ball, with the result already noted.

If the umpire judges that the hand was not hit at all, B2 is safe at first and R1 is out on the missed base appeal. There are now two outs. Bring in the next batter!

Well said, great explination

[wadeintothem]

I'm following what Bill wrote with no problem.

My own comments first:

The first post in this thread doesn't give us enough definite info to make a definite call. Just because the batter has a sore hand, it takes a leap of faith and a big assumption to automatically say the umpire missed a call. I've seen pitches hit the bat first, close to the hands, then rebound and smash a finger. Since the ball is hitting the handle, you can hear a "dull thud" and that is not proof that the ball hit the hands FIRST.

If the ball hit the bat handle first, then hit a finger, the correct call would be "foul ball". The result of the play would be R1 back to second and B2 right back in the box with the same count she had before the pitch (1-2).

Wade, if you want us to discuss a pitch hitting a batter in the hand while swinging, don't make us guess at the call, based on a sound and possible injury, about the one element of this play that is strictly a judgment call and upon which the rest of the ruling depends.

Just tell us it hit her hand!

What Bill is saying is that, until a coach talks to the umpire and pins down his JUDGMENT (ie: did ball hit hands first, or at all?) you have to go with what was called- B2 safe at a first.

Once you get an answer on the judgment, you can follow-up with a question about the rule interpretation.

If the umpire tells you it didn't hit her hand, you're stuck with that judgment. If he tells you it hit her hand after hitting the bat, or something like "the hands are part of the bat", then he has incorrectly interpreted a rule. THAT can be protested.

His other point seems to be about the appeal on R1 for missing third. He's saying that the coach can appeal the miss, but unless the umpire agrees, R1 is not out. Well, yes, that is kind of an obvious statement. For the example play, it flat out states that the runner missed the base, so we don't have any assumptions to make on that point- except that the umpire also saw it and would honor the appeal.

The final result of this play is really a cut-and-dried ruling IF we assume the pitch hit the batter's hand (and nothing else) on the swing. Batter out on strike three for the second out. R1 back to second base as the ball was dead on the hit batter and the runner could not legally advance, so her miss of the base effectively "never happened" and an appeal would be moot.

If the ball hit the bat handle, then the hand, foul ball, with the result already noted.

If the umpire judges that the hand was not hit at all, B2 is safe at first and R1 is out on the missed base appeal. There are now two outs. Bring in the next batter!

Hey you write the friggin scenarios next time jeez!



Good stuff bret.