Going to the plate without a bat

No rule in OBR which says he HAS to have a bat. Only, that it must be legal. Incredibly stupid b/c sometimes, swings are defensive for protection rather than to actually hit a base hit.

No rule says a fielder has to have a glove. Only, if he uses one, it has to be legal.

Agreed, there is no specific rule that requires a batter to actually have a bat........yet this would clearly would be unsportsmanlike and most likely provoke ill feelings.....

So under the spirit of fair play, I would forbid it....he doesnt have to swing it, but he better have one.........

I would direct the batter to get a bat. This is probably the most valid case for using 9.01(c) that i have seen in 20 years.

While I don't agree with it, I see no reason to instruct the batter to have a bat. It is just a case of "It isn't illegal by rule, so it must be legal" for me.

I won't make the pitcher have a glove if he decides to pitch without one. There are only regulations against having an illegal glove. Nothing against having no glove.

I know it is 2 totally different issues but the concept is the same. I am not inventing rules just to be doing it. The only thing the batter is required to have by rule is a helmet. He is not required to have anything else. The reason, of course, is a safety issue. There is no safety issue of him not having a bat.

Different philosophies. But, I am not one for making up a rule in any situation even though it may fall under 9.01(c). Also, I will not be granting "Time" for him to get one if he decides to after a strike. He will get nailed for an automatic strike once he steps out for delaying the game in FED and OBR (not sure if NCAA has this).

Not a fan of using 9.01C ......

I guess Im coming at it from another angle and it may be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole....but here is my reference....

NFHS rule 3-3-1g 4
a coach, player or substitute shall not:

g. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include:

4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.....

get a bat son...

just my .02

quote:

No rule says a fielder has to have a glove. Only, if he uses one, it has to be legal.

Fed rule 1-3-6 states that "Gloves/mitts made of leather shall be worn by all fielders..."

An easy fix to this BS. Just start ringing up strikes. I bet he gets a bat when the count is 0-2. In fact, call the first one a strike when it's about half way to the plate. See if that works.

quote:

An easy fix to this BS. Just start ringing up strikes. I bet he gets a bat when the count is 0-2. In fact, call the first one a strike when it's about half way to the plate. See if that works.

That would work. But in a more practical sense, I would demand the batter go get a bat.

For all of you who say there is no rule against it, There is no rule that says a player cannot bring his pet alligator with him onto the field. I would not allow that either. A little common sense is needed here.

quote:

Originally posted by mrumpiresir:

For all of you who say there is no rule against it, There is no rule that says a player cannot bring his pet alligator with him onto the field. I would not allow that either. A little common sense is needed here.

If he does and he is able to keep it from interfering with the game, then I'll allow it as long as it isn't a safety issue. Such as, it is only about 1 foot long and he can carry it. If starts using it to scare the other team, then it is interfering with the game. I have no issues with alligators as long as they are not big enough to eat me. When that happens, then they need to be in a zoo or in their natural home.

So, I still won't force him to get a bat by rule in OBR.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

No rule says a fielder has to have a glove. Only, if he uses one, it has to be legal.

Fed rule 1-3-6 states that "Gloves/mitts made of leather shall be worn by all fielders..."

All rules use the word "may" and not "shall". In an OBR game, I won't be forcing any fielder to have a glove. In a FED game, I guess I would if I did FED games.

OBR
1.12 The catcher may wear a leather mitt not more than thirty-eight inches in circumference, nor more than fifteen and one-half inches from top to bottom.

1.13 The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt not more than twelve inches long from top to bottom and not more than eight inches wide across the palm, measured from the base of the thumb crotch to the outer edge of the mitt.

1.14 Each fielder, other than the first baseman or catcher, may use or wear a leather glove.

quote:

An easy fix to this BS. Just start ringing up strikes. I bet he gets a bat when the count is 0-2. In fact, call the first one a strike when it's about half way to the plate. See if that works.

So if you're the pitcher and a batter comes up to the plate without a bat, you should throw it at the batter right? You're gonna call it a strike before it gets there anyway.. if the umpire wants to look foolish, really make him look foolish.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Umpire:
All rules use the word "may" and not "shall". In an OBR game, I won't be forcing any fielder to have a glove.
OBR
1.12 The catcher may wear a leather mitt not more than thirty-eight inches in circumference, nor more than fifteen and one-half inches from top to bottom.

1.13 The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt not more than twelve inches long from top to bottom and not more than eight inches wide across the palm, measured from the base of the thumb crotch to the outer edge of the mitt.

1.14 Each fielder, other than the first baseman or catcher, may use or wear a leather glove.

This is one of those times where we need to remember that the OBR rulesmakers make rules for professional adult players. The do not consider what is good or even safe for LL, PONY, Select Team or even adult rec baseball players.

The romantic notion that ML baseball is "grownups playing a kids game" is and always has been BS. Baseball was begun and the rules have always been written for adults. That's why FED, LL, PONY and most other organizations have their "add-on" rules.

Additionally, MLB has a record of being reluctant to change or update antiquated rules. How long did the rules specifically prohibit applying licorice to the ball? Jim Evans has identifed over 230 errors in the rule book. The first is in the first sentence of the first rule.

The promised re-write of the book of about 14 years ago never happened, in part, because of how difficult it is to get the rules committe, owner and the players union to agree on one rule change much less a complete re-write.

The glove/mitt rules were first written when the players did not all wear gloves. Even I'm not old enough to remember the last time a shortstop played sans glove.

In regards theto OP, first, I suspect like many war stories, reality is probably not getting in the way of a good story. Second, this is not covered spedfically by rule because, as mentioned earlier, the rules are written for adult professionals.

If it ever did happen, whether a day game or night game, as much as I disdain the use of 9.01(C), I would instruct the batter to get a bat. If he did not, he would be ejected for refusing to follow the umpires instructions. 9.01 (d)

9.01(c) gives the umpire the authority to rule however he likes in cases like these. My personal belief, however, is that 9.01(c) should only be invoked if one team gains an unfair advantage or if there is a safety issue. I don't think either applies here. So I say if it isn't specifically illegal by the rules, then it is legal.

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:
9.01(c) gives the umpire the authority to rule however he likes in cases like these. My personal belief, however, is that 9.01(c) should only be invoked if one team gains an unfair advantage or if there is a safety issue. I don't think either applies here. So I say if it isn't specifically illegal by the rules, then it is legal.

No offense but one of the teams will be getting a huge advantage if the batter doesn't bring a bat to the plate. It's just not the team most people think.

This discussion and the OP that started it are completely inane. My guess is it's an old wives tale that never happened in anything that could reasonably be considered organized baseball.

Stan - puhleeze stick a fork in this thread.

That's the great thing about sports. Every time you go to the field or court, there's a chance you will see something you have never seen before or even imagined. I never thought I would see a tennis match that lasted 11 hours over the course of 3 days, but it just happened today at Wimbledon. Even if this is particular event never happened, there's no real harm in discussing it. If it's a waste of your time then you are free to not read the thread.


"No offense but one of the teams will be getting a huge advantage..."

What I meant was that a team should not be allowed to gain an unfair advantage by doing something outside the scope of the rules. If they want to give the other team an advantage, then be my guest.

agreed dash........think its clear we all have checked in with our opinions.

end of value closure.....