Follow Through Interference

[BSBAL18]

This might be a non-issue for MLB, but game 2 of Cubs/Nationals, man on first. Pitch was made and in the followthrough of the batter's swing, he hit the catchers mit and the ball popped out. The umpire called dead ball and sent runner back to first.

What (if any) is the MLB / NFHS ruling on that play? I am pretty sure MLB was correct because no coaches or players went crazy for the dead ball, return runners. But NFHS might be difference since that "hinders the catcher from making a play on the runner"....

[stratref]

This was incorrectly called. The correct call would have been backswing interference which as stated is a dead ball, batter out (on 3rd strike) and runners must hold. Dusty should have protested the game, despite what the plate umpire said (his official statement to the press uses "in my judgement" at least 3 times).

[FormerUmp]

Joe Torre confirms wrong call made on passed ball in NLDS Game 5 between Cubs, Nationals

My interpretation is that the rule itself doesn't apply, as Layne judged no interference. The clarifying comments are irrelevant as the rule doesn't apply. Correct call.

Obviously that's not what MLB wants, but it's supported by the text of the rule book.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by stratref

This was incorrectly called. The correct call would have been backswing interference which as stated is a dead ball, batter out (on 3rd strike) and runners must hold. Dusty should have protested the game, despite what the plate umpire said (his official statement to the press uses "in my judgement" at least 3 times).

It was correct for MLB. Dead ball, Strike. Runners return.

FED is different

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It was correct for MLB. Dead ball, Strike. Runners return.

FED is different

Now we know that, since MLB has clarified. At the time the call was made, there was written rule support for it, and I would actually say the correct call was made as the rule book is written.

[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.