Interference differences

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Thumbing through my casebook....

Interference
Casebook play 2.21.1C
with two outs, B3 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball, which rebounds into B3's base path. As B3 begins running to first, B3 accidentally kicks ball. RULING: B3 is not guilty of interference and the ball remains alive (sic) unless in the umpire's judgement B3 intentionally kicked the ball (8-4).

Casebook play 7.3.5F
With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first safely and R1 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

Someone explain this to me because it doesn't seem that the same level of rule applicability (intention on the part of the batter) is being used in these two scenarios.

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?

[mikebran]

Obviously they consider a BAT and a FOOT to be two different things. This mantra may help:

Foot good!
Bat bad!

or something to that effect.


OH, but my FAV case book play is

10.1.2 B

Gotta love that one!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

So...

Third strike. Swing and a miss. Ball bounces from catcher's mitt into fair territory and into the BR's base path. Runner accidentally kicks ball into foul territory and into the bat as it is dropped...

on a Wednesday, with the wind from the soutwest, under a rising full moon, and the 3rd base coach's wife is getting her nails done.... oh and it's a green bat.

is the ball "alive," or dead. Fair or foul? Interfered?

Somebody must have a good answer for the original question, though.

[akalsey]

If the third base coach were getting HIS nails done, then I'd have interference. No matter what the play, the coach is interfering with my ability to enjoy the game.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[radwaste50]

I think bob is right on on the batters action and the player in 10.2.1b will have a loooooooooooong day

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
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.

Thanks Bob.

For me this conversation actually started on another forum and the play was ...

Runner on 3rd. F5 is playing up the line in front of the runner. Line shot between F5 and the line. Runner retreats back towards 3rd. F5 boots the ball and it ibounds into foul territory. As F5 turns to follow the ball he runs into the back of the retreating runner.

The person I was talking with had been told by a clinician that the proper call was "Time. Interference. The runner is out!"

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I just could not fathom making such a call. I would have live ball and F5 better hurry up because the runner is going to change his mind and head for home pretty quick.

Am I missing something? Thoughts?

[scyguy]

there is no intent by the runner to hinder F5. No interference!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Is this what you tried to tell me, Bob? I'm slow but eventually I can usually figure things out.

No, that's not what I tried to tell you, and I don't see what a "foul tip" has to do with the situation.

The OBR rule (sometimes called "weak interference") is somewhat different.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

No, that's not what I tried to tell you, and I don't see what a "foul tip" has to do with the situation.

The OBR rule (sometimes called "weak interference") is somewhat different.

Casebook 2.21.1C
This is a dropped third strike situation and the catcher has dropped the pitch. (It has hit the ground and a catch can no longer be made.) After being dropped, the ball bounds into the batter-runner's basepath. Although unintentional contact is made by the BR, the casebook says the ball remains live.

Casebook 7.3.5F
This is also a dropped third strike situation. However, this time the pitch has bounced off the catcher's mitt and into the air. (Until the ball hits the ground, this still meets the definition of a foul tip.) A legal catch can still be made and a caught third strike can still result in an out. However in this scenario, the batter interferes with the completion of the catch because his backswing/follow-through hits the ball. The catcher can no longer complete the catch and score an out. In this case it is only appropriate that interference be called and the batter be ruled out.

This makes sense to me. However, you said

it's the batter's actions "after" the swing (an action he's not allowed to make) that cause the contact. Thus, a penalty.

Although I don't see a specific rule, I understand the batter is not allowed to hit the ball twice. This is a safety issue - you can't pop one up and then take another swing at it as it falls; the catcher will be trying to make a catch at this point. Hence rule 7-3-5c: A batter shall not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner,...

Is interfering with the catcher's fielding the action you are saying is not allowed? A follow-through or backswing are not specifically disallowed. I would think that kicking a ball that the catcher has dropped would also be interfering with his fielding - but again the casebook differentiates between these two specific actions (unintentionally kicking a dropped third strike ball and untentionally hitting an as yet uncaught third strike). The first is not penalized as interference and second one is.

Or are you saying that follow-through or backswing cannot be considered unintentional? The case book seems to hint at this. The last statement of 7.3.5F is, "Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through."

Sorry Bob, maybe I'm slower than I thought.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Casebook 7.3.5F
This is also a dropped third strike situation. However, this time the pitch has bounced off the catcher's mitt and into the air. (Until the ball hits the ground, this still meets the definition of a foul tip.)

The ball wasn't batted, so it can't be a "foul tip".

Or are you saying that follow-through or backswing cannot be considered unintentional? The case book seems to hint at this. The last statement of 7.3.5F is, "Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through."

Sorry Bob, maybe I'm slower than I thought.

The followthrough might be unintentional. The batter is still responsible for it.

[LMan]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Thanks Bob.

For me this conversation actually started on another forum and the play was ...

Runner on 3rd. F5 is playing up the line in front of the runner. Line shot between F5 and the line. Runner retreats back towards 3rd. F5 boots the ball and it ibounds into foul territory. As F5 turns to follow the ball he runs into the back of the retreating runner.

The person I was talking with had been told by a clinician that the proper call was "Time. Interference. The runner is out!"

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I just could not fathom making such a call. I would have live ball and F5 better hurry up because the runner is going to change his mind and head for home pretty quick.

Am I missing something? Thoughts?

I have no interference - the fielder is not 100% protected since he has muffed the original attempt to field the ball, and the ball is now out of his immediate reach. Only INT call here for me would be blatant intentional, which isnt present here (runner attempting to return to the bag).

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Thanks Bob.

For me this conversation actually started on another forum and the play was ...

Runner on 3rd. F5 is playing up the line in front of the runner. Line shot between F5 and the line. Runner retreats back towards 3rd. F5 boots the ball and it ibounds into foul territory. As F5 turns to follow the ball he runs into the back of the retreating runner.

The person I was talking with had been told by a clinician that the proper call was "Time. Interference. The runner is out!"

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I just could not fathom making such a call. I would have live ball and F5 better hurry up because the runner is going to change his mind and head for home pretty quick.

Am I missing something? Thoughts?

Hmmm -- somehow I miised this post. The play you describe reads more like obstruction than it does like interference.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

The ball wasn't batted, so it can't be a "foul tip".

It's all starting to run together... what were we talking about? Must be the drugs. What drugs? Who's giving me drugs?

As usual Bob, you are correct. Duh! 7.3.5F was never a foul tip... it is just not yet a completed catch... don't know what I was thinking.

Sunshine and warm weather here today after several weeks of cold and wind and rain and snow and cancelations... Weather today is just right for a double header. I'm working with a rookie today... he is a highly experienced D1 Basketball official but this year he has decided to do a little baseball umpiring - he used to coach HS Varsity baseball so he understands the game and I'm expecting it will go well.