Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why? Steve Hatfield [sic]
|
I don't suppose I'll ever understand why you immediately dismiss any "ruling" I make. If I were in your chapter, I assure you we would never do a game together. I've accused you and your EWS cohorts of an agenda. You've denied that. But if that is true, and you simply disagree because you disagree, then we have an inexplicable situation.
Thousands of umpires for decades have trusted my opinions on the rules of baseball, at whatever level. I get an average of 15 requests every day for rulings; they come from all over the world. (Just today, I solved a problem for Giovanni from Italy. I didn't even know they
played baseball in Italy. Only now does it occur to me I should have sent you his email address, and you could have disagreed with my answer -- without even knowing the question.) Even in this Internet age, I still get phone requests from as far aways as Japan. And yesterday, calls from Tampa and New Orleans.
As I am wont to say, when it's Steve and EWS against the world, bet the world.
I'm going to walk through this just as if you were a 16-year-old candidate umpire applying to join the staff of one of my Pony Leagues.
1. It is an axiom of baseball that once the pitch passes the plate, the batter no longer has the right to swing at it.
2. That being so, at that point the catcher cannot interfere with the batter.
3. Batter interference is of two kinds: strong and weak.
4. If the catcher has complete control of the pitch and the backswing smashes into the catcher's glove, that is "strong" interference
if there are baserunners (as there are in the inciting play of this thread). If it were not so, batters could always attempt to knock the ball out of the catcher's glove, in the mistaken opinion that would permit a runner to advance.
Note: Since no batter would be called out in a game where Steve Freix was the UIC, I suggest that might lead to dangerous play. (A second kind of weak interference occurs when the batter accidentally interferes with the catcher's return toss.)
But....
5. "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
before the catcher has securely held the ball [my emphasis], it shall be called a strike only (not interference)."
Note: I thought here the OBR language would serve as well as any I might compose on my own.
6. To summarize:
- Contact before the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "weak" interference, strike only, batter is not out, unless it was the third strike;
- Contact after the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "strong" interference, batter is out, runners remain.