[thumpferee]

Is this the same sitch?

Layne's justification for no-calling the play was one of two prevailing arguments that could be made concerning the play. This "no call is the correct call" line of thought makes for a tidy little package, but is, nonetheless, incorrect.


Wieters and Layne discuss the play.
Instead, "no call is the incorrect call" rules the day because, as Rule 6.03(a)(3) & (4) Comment ("If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play") makes no exception nor allowance for any issue of timing.

As Torre explained on Thursday to Chris Russo on the Mad Dog Sports Radio program, "The rule states...when the bat came around and hit the catcher's mask, it's a dead ball. And that's the one thing that should have taken precedence."

Essentially, the rule precludes the use of judgment other than to determine whether or not the batter's bat unintentionally hit the catcher (or ball) on the follow-through. If it did, then the play must be ruled follow-through contact and a dead ball. The only exception for this is found in the MLB Umpire Manual, and states that if the catcher's initial throw directly retires the runner despite the infraction, the unintentional follow-through contact is ignored and the result of the play (an out) stands.