[mostman]

Although - that makes it sound like it has to look like a strike - which it doesn't - so back to the rule book...

[Obscure Name]

Judge Mental13, on May 28 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

I always thought hands gripping the bat were in fact part of the bat as well.

That's not a real rule, sort of like "tie goes to the runner."

[Pearl Wilson]

[Sille Skrub]

DamonasaNomad, on May 28 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

Uh -- that's "triskaidekaphobia".

That's what I said!

[mostman]

NESN telling us the rule - and its the same one I quoted.

Im not sure I agree with that right now.

[ragnarok725]

Judge Mental13, on May 28 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

I always thought hands gripping the bat were in fact part of the bat as well.

That pitch came up and in and actually looked like it would have hit Blake in the head if he hadn't gotten the bat/his hands up in front to deflect it.

I'm also curious as to why a runner wouldn't be allowed to take first on a play like that, I'd imagine it has something to do with the catcher not having a chance to catch the ball if it hits him first? But a hitter swinging at a pitch that ultimately hits him (or trying to protect his face from the high cheese) or an airmailed fastball that hits the backstop seem equally unlikely, and a catcher would have more time to retrieve a ball deflected off of a hitter than a backstop, no?

Per your second part, imagine this. A guy goes up there with body armor. Takes two strikes. On the third one he swings the bat with one hand and nicks the ball with the other. Ball goes to the backstop. Runner goes to first. I think the presumption is that it's unfair to the catcher to be expected to make a play when the ball takes a turn after hitting someone.

That being said, that play was just fucking weird. But hands as part of the bat? Haven't we seen people given first base after being hit on the hands before? Jeter with Pedro comes to mind. I don't know if the hands are/should be part of the bat, but I always understood that if the ball hits the player and the player swings, it's a strike, period. And in that case it was strike three.

[Judge Mental13]

mostman, on May 28 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

Although - that makes it sound like it has to look like a strike - which it doesn't - so back to the rule book...

Your post (and the rule you quoted) said that a batter swinging at a pitch that hits him is out, it doesn't say that hands gripping a bat are not considered part of the bat.

[DamonasaNomad]

Sille Skrub, on May 28 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

That's what I said!

Why, of course it is! After all, your post doesn't say it was edited. . .

[mostman]

Judge Mental13, on May 28 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

Your post (and the rule you quoted) said that a batter swinging at a pitch that hits him is out, it doesn't say that hands gripping a bat are not considered part of the bat.

Yeah - I couldn't find a single thing in the rule book that extended the hands as part of the bat.

The rule I posted is ambiguous at best.

[Obscure Name]

Judge Mental13, on May 28 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

Your post (and the rule you quoted) said that a batter swinging at a pitch that hits him is out, it doesn't say that hands gripping a bat are not considered part of the bat.

Official Rules: 2.00 Definition of Terms
The PERSON of a player or an umpire is any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment.

[favreauk]

Oh yeah--
Gloat away.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

ragnarok725, on May 29 2007, 02:35 AM, said:

Per your second part, imagine this. A guy goes up there with body armor. Takes two strikes. On the third one he swings the bat with one hand and nicks the ball with the other. Ball goes to the backstop. Runner goes to first. I think the presumption is that it's unfair to the catcher to be expected to make a play when the ball takes a turn after hitting someone.

That being said, that play was just fucking weird. But hands as part of the bat? Haven't we seen people given first base after being hit on the hands before? Jeter with Pedro comes to mind. I don't know if the hands are/should be part of the bat, but I always understood that if the ball hits the player and the player swings, it's a strike, period. And in that case it was strike three.

I'm not an expert on this rule by any means, but my understanding would be that the ball is dead when it hits the batter. However, when the batter swings, it's a strike, regardless of whether he as hit by the pitch. But the strike doesn't negate the dead ball. It can't. Otherwise what (other than pain) would stop a batter from sticking his hands or arms in front of a pitch just to deflect the ball away from the catcher?

So that play tonight: hit batsman, dead ball, swing, strike three.

[kevlog]

[twoBshorty]

DamonasaNomad, on May 28 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

Uh -- that's "triskaidekaphobia".

Edit: Ooh, you edited it first!

You know, I think I read somewhere that Larry Lucchino is actually phobic of the number 13, to the point of changing his hotel rooms and being convinced their group wouldn't win the ownership bid because JWH's birthday is September 13. He must be pretty unhappy right now.

[CrouchingTonyHiddenPena]

mostman, on May 28 2007, 10:29 PM, said:

Folks - from the MLB rule book.

Rule 6.05 - A batter is out when:
(f) He attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him;

Here is the link:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/offic...es/batter_6.jsp

This play was a ruled an out in conjunction with the play being called dead though, which brings into play a combination of rule 6.05 as well as the definition of "Strike" in section 2.0, subsection (e), and rule 6.08 under subsection (b), which states (in my bold):

Quote

Official Rules: 2.0 Definition of Terms
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which --
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
© Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.

and

Quote

Official Rules: 6.00 The Batter
6.08
(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;
If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.
APPROVED RULING: When the batter is touched by a pitched ball which does not entitle him to first base, the ball is dead and no runner may advance.

So, since the play is ruled dead by rule 6.08, rule 6.05 says it's a strike, and the definition of this particular strike, when a batter is hit while swinging, says it's an out...Voila', he's out on a dead ball third strike. Shitty, but I'll take it. At least that's how I looked at the ruling.

EDIT: GCPT hit the nail on the head first. Good work.

2nd EDIT: BP touches on this on May 7, 2003 in a quick Q&A with Jim Evans, under qustion (c ) addressing whether or not the hands are part of the bat.

Quote

BP: c) The hands are part of the bat.

JE: This is another misconception. The hands are NOT part of the bat. If a pitched ball hits the hands and the batter did not attempt to swing, it is a hit batsman. If a pitched ball hits the hands as he swings, it is a strike and the ball is dead. Reference: Rule 2.00 Strike (e.)

http://www.baseballp...news/?author=40

This post has been edited by CrouchingTonyHiddenPena: 28 May 2007 - 10:07 PM

[satyadaimoku]

If the Red Sox go .500 the rest of the year, the Yankees will need to go 70-43 (.619) in order to tie us for the division lead.

If the Red Sox go .550, the Yanks need to go 76-37 (.669) to tie.

If the Red Sox go .600, the Yanks need to go 81-32 (.718) to tie.

It ain't over, but the Yankees have sure put themselves in a difficult situation.

[thrawnqq]

Obscure Name, on May 28 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

Hey, why can't I rate threads?

??

[Obscure Name]

thrawnqq, on May 28 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

??

The little drop down arrow isn't clickable, and neither are the stars.

[mostman]

Obscure Name, on May 28 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

The little drop down arrow isn't clickable, and neither are the stars.

Maybe you cant vote once a ton of people vote?

[twoBshorty]

mostman, on May 28 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

Maybe you cant vote once a ton of people vote?

Could you vote, mostman? I had no problem; it might be a Supporter thing. I don't know.