Now that we have gotten off what Gerry Davis had for lunch the other day....

Batter squares to bunt, pulls back and bat hits catchers glove? CI or nothing?

Sounds like nothing.

Thats with capitals

NOTHING

mrm21711,

I would agree for the most part with DG and jicecone that this is most likely nothing. Certainly not CI (or "obstruction" in FED).

However, I could also see a call of "weak interference" in the event that there was a runner attempting to advance on the pitch/play. That is, a call of "time" and runners return to TOP base (unless the catcher was able to throw out the runner despite the batter pulling his bat back into the catcher's mitt - play would stand.)

This would seem to me to be the equivalent of the batter's follow-through inadvertantly hitting the catcher, as dealt with in the EXCEPTION for 6.06(c) (towards the end).

I don't have any authoritative support for this ruling on the play described, but to me it seems consistent with the principles behind the rules.

JM

Then under FED you would have interference on the batter correct? And I see your point (sort of), but that isnt his follow through, he didnt even swing.

If a runner is stealing and the batter squares, but then brings his bat back and hits the catcher's glove I think you could have a legitimate batter interference call, especially if the ball is dropped. The weak interference on the backswing is similar. If a runner is stealing, or if it was 3rd strike, and the backswing hit caused the catcher to drop the ball, then you got a case for interference.

I see the argument. Since the batter is not making an attempt to strike the ball, he would be interfering even though it is not technically a backswing.

Wait a minute here!

That would have to be pretty dam obivious on intent, for someone to call batter interference here. To square around for an attempted bunt, and then pulling back and purposely attempt to interfer with the catcher by hitting his glove, is far fetched. Possible, but improbable.

Stick with it being nothing, unless the intent is such (and boy will it be obivious or at least it better be)that everyone would clearly have seen it.

My inclination is nothing, but I would not try to decide intent, if he brought his bat back and made the catcher drop the ball on a steal attempt I have pretty much the same thing as I would if he took a swing at an outside pitch and ended up out in front of the plate. Did he interfere or not, intent has nothing to do with it, and I can't read minds. When he takes a big swing and his backswing knocks the ball out of the catcher's mitt I am pretty sure that is not intentional either.

Sorry for changing the subject....
 

We had this come up before....

Batter steps across home plate but does not interfere with throw. Not interference correct? He has to interfere with the throw right? He stepped over but the catcher made the throw with no contact and no interference by batter.

My inclination is nothing, but I would not try to decide intent, if he brought his bat back and made the catcher drop the ball on a steal attempt I have pretty much the same thing as I would if he took a swing at an outside pitch and ended up out in front of the plate. Did he interfere or not, intent has nothing to do with it, and I can't read minds. When he takes a big swing and his backswing knocks the ball out of the catcher's mitt I am pretty sure that is not intentional either. [/B][/QUOTE]

DG, in OBR, if a batter's backswing iinterferes, even if a runner is stealing, it's nothing. With a runner moving then it's a dead ball and runner goes back (if the throw doesn't get him). BUT, that's only if you think it's unintentional. If it's intentional, then you have interference. I would find it hard to believe a batter could actually orchestrate that, but I guess it's possible. Anyway, no we can't read minds, but an instance like this is one where we need to determine if something was done intentionally.

DG, in OBR, if a batter's backswing iinterferes, even if a runner is stealing, it's nothing. With a runner moving then it's a dead ball and runner goes back (if the throw doesn't get him). BUT, that's only if you think it's unintentional. If it's intentional, then you have interference. I would find it hard to believe a batter could actually orchestrate that, but I guess it's possible. Anyway, no we can't read minds, but an instance like this is one where we need to determine if something was done intentionally. [/B][/QUOTE]

For OBR game call it soft interference but in Fed that batter is out. end of story, intentional or not.

Re: Sorry for changing the subject....
 

I'd be pretty hard pressed to call interference in that case.

DG, in OBR, if a batter's backswing iinterferes, even if a runner is stealing, it's nothing. With a runner moving then it's a dead ball and runner goes back (if the throw doesn't get him). BUT, that's only if you think it's unintentional. If it's intentional, then you have interference. I would find it hard to believe a batter could actually orchestrate that, but I guess it's possible. Anyway, no we can't read minds, but an instance like this is one where we need to determine if something was done intentionally. [/B][/QUOTE]After your post I had to go back to the BRD to review this one, and there are several differences between FED, NCAA and OBR and even differences in situations in OBR. It's not always nothing in OBR. See 263 in the 2005 BRD for all the differences.