Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
This is commonly referred to as "backswing" or "weak" interference. If it happens on a strike 3, the batter is out and does not become a runner on a 3rd strike not caught. If not strike 3, it's simply a strike and any other runners remain at their TOP base.
JM
|
The only problem I have with 6.06(c) is that it states "
BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball" In that situation, the catcher already had a chance to securely catch the ball but did not. Backswing interference was put in place to protect a catcher from a batter's backswing knocking the ball out of his mit or a bat hitting his body AFTER he has legally CAUGHT the ball
Let's make the situation a little more realistic and say strike 3 was a pitch in the dirt that deflected off the catcher and then the batter's backswing made contact with the ball.
We know that if the batter swings at a strike 3 pitch in the dirt and then unintentionally kicks the ball on his way to first, the ball is still live and play continues (no interference)
Now the same play occurs except this time, the batter's backswing makes contact with the ball (rather than kicking it) AFTER the pitch deflects off the catcher...... why would this ruled any differently?
I think we have to consider the origin of rule 6.06(c) and why it was put into place. The rule was put in place to protect catchers from having the ball
jarred loose by the back swing, not as a security blanket for an originally misplayed ball.
JM, I'm not saying you are wrong in your interpretation, however, just stating a rule reference, I feel, is not enough sufficient evidence in this particular case. Give me more reasons to back up your claim that backswing interference should take precedence on a ball that is misplayed by the defense after they already had an opportunity to field the ball cleanly.