Weird Dropped Third Strike
 

How about this one: Two outs, two strikes. The batter swings at strike three, the ball goes into the catcher's glove and then squirts out directly in front of him--the catcher doesn't secure the ball for the third strike to be an out. The squirts out, and while still in the air, the batter's natural backswing knocks the ball over toward the dugout. The batter starts running to first, and I kill the play.

I called the batter out for interference, but darned if I know why. I couldn't think of any specific rule that covers an odd-ball play like this, but instinctually, it just seemed like the only possible call. I explained to the coach that the batter had the right to run to first, but at the moment the ball contacted the bat and knocked it thirty feet from the catcher, he interfered with the catcher's ability to field the the third strike.

I guess this one might cover the play, but I don't know. Any ideas?:confused:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when-

(a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;

You got the end result correct, though not the ruling. This is a simple backswing hit ball issue. Does not matter what the count is - simple dead ball (Unless intentional).

It doesn't happen very often, so it's not unusual for an umpire to scratch thehead & wonder what to do.

And here, with the ball dead on backswing interference, the batter is out on strike 3, no advance possible.

No interfernece
 

First of all, this sounds like a "Third World Play". The chances for the ball to "squirt" out of the catcher's mit and just "hang" in the air as the batter's backswing comes back around to hit it are slim and none. With that said, I will give you a Third World response just for sh!ts and giggles...

I am going to go out on a limb and say NO interference - play on. The reason being is this play should be treated under the third strike "not legally caught" rule. If the defense (catcher) misplays a strike 3 pitch and the ball is not intentionally interferred with by the batter on his way to first, then the ball remains live and play continues regardless of where the ball ends up.

This approved ruling (NCAA & OBR) was put in place to not punish the offense for a mistake made by the defense (not cleanly fielding the third strike pitch).

You asked a TWQ and I just gave you a TWA (Third World Answer). Actually, my response isn't too far off - I could probably sell it to a college coach ;)

I too have "play on" - it would require intent on the part of the batter to rule interference on a play like this.

This exact sitch came up in a thread about a week/two weeks ago. I argued a good bit in support of Sal's and mcrowder's position, but was outvoted rather severely.

Good luck this time, guys :D

Sal Giaco & Mcrowder,

As mbyron & socalblue1 correctly stated, this is a dead ball and the batter is out!

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.

Third world, second world, first world; your world or my world; doesn't make any difference.

JM

I say you have nothing...play on.

I don't think the bat hit the ball. Instead, I think the ball hit the bat, as it bounced out of the catcher's glove.

Next time, squeeze it catcher.

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.

This is a case of backswing interference as defined by Jaska/Roder


Backswing Interference

A batter's backswing occurs after he has swung through the pitch, and he continues his swing all the way around until the bat reaches the vicinity of the catcher. If a batter contacts the catcher, or his mitt, or the baseball with his backswing, and the catcher has gloved or blocked the pitch, it is interference. It cannot be interference if the pitch is errant and has gone wild past the catcher before the contact. When backswing contact occurs and is judged to be interference:


Play


R2, two strike count on the batter, one out. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt, which the catcher is able to block into the air in front of himself. The batter's backswing contacts the ball and knocks it several feet away. the batter is out, the ball is dead, and R2 must return.



Tim.

Now that's enough evidence for me! I stand corrected. By the way Tim, how does J/R rule on interference by the B/R when he just unintentionally kicks a pitched ball that deflects off the catcher? I'd be curious to see the rule reference since I am out of town on business and cannot look it up. Call me if you want: 586-530-6795. Thanks again for your help.

Here is what the J/R says on your play, Sal.


NOTE: Apart from being outside the 45-foot lane, a Batter-Runner can only interfere on a thrown ball if his action is intentional and hinders a fielder. Similarly, a strike three where a batter becomes a runner is treated as a thrown ball situation, and such Batter-Runner can only interfere subject to the dictates of Section II, Subsection B, of this chapter.

Examples:

1. R1, two outs, A strike three is blocked (not caught) by the catcher, and the batter-runner, starting his advance to first, kicks the ball, or contacts the catcher who is trying to field the ball: neither case is interference, but if either hindrance was an intentional action, disregarding an advance, there is interference.



Tim.

Nice job with all of the rule references. Thanks again Tim!

Thank you for your explanations! To give a little context, I umpired high school and Legion ball for eight years before giving it up four years ago. I decided to go to law school, and I'm out here in Kansas where there's not as much baseball very close, so I decided to do the local 12 year old youth league games here in town rather than travel.

The one thing I've noticed is how much more often I have to go to the rule book because....weird things happen when the kids are this age.

So, to respond to whomever said this was a "third world" question, yeah--sometimes you get those at this age, I guess. So you can say it's slim and none that this play would happen, but when kids are just learning to play and the plays aren't as crisp as they are at higher levels, you see stuff like this.

It's not as third world as you might think. If it were that third world I doubt the J/R would have covered nearly the exact same play.



Tim.