Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
In both cases, hasn't the catcher already had his opportunity to field the ball and hasn't he booted that opportunity? Why is the batter responsible for the unintentional/incidental contact in one case and not in the other?
|
In play 1, it's the batters actions of trying for first (an action he's allowed to make) that cause the contact. Thus, no penalty.
In play 2, it's the batter's actions "after" the swing (an action he's not allowed to make) that cause the contact. Thus, a penalty.
|
Still thumbing through rule books ... and now mixing rules ... I found this in the OBR rules (original case plays were NFHS).
Rule 6.06 in part says "If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the ball all the way around and, in the umpire's judgement, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."
But I also reread the case plays... they now make sense.
Part of my earlier perceived difference of 7.3.5F that I was missing was the definition of a foul tip and that the ball has
bounced off the catcher's mitt. A catch, and therefore an out, can still be made. So the batter in his follow through/backswing as described in the original case play has interfered with a potential catch ==> therefore, an out is the correct call. If it were not a 3rd strike, it should only be called dead.
In the other case play, 2.21.1C, the ball has already hit the ground and a catch (caught third strike) cannot be made.
Is this what you tried to tell me, Bob? I'm slow but eventually I can usually figure things out.
