The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 16, 2017, 01:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 90
Follow Through Interference

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"....
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 19, 2017, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 69
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).
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2017, 10:49pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 130
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2017, 11:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratref View Post
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
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 27, 2017, 09:09am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2017, 05:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NeverNeverLand
Posts: 1,036
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.
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE: Follow-up e-mail, huh? jdmara Basketball 8 Thu Jan 28, 2010 04:34pm
Here's one...More to follow...... MidMadness Basketball 5 Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:04pm
Backswing (follow through) Interference ctblu40 Baseball 26 Thu Jun 14, 2007 05:21pm
Follow up on ump hit by the bat fonzzy07 Baseball 9 Wed May 10, 2006 04:17pm
OBS follow-up SC Ump Softball 6 Wed Mar 22, 2006 06:09pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1