Batter's Swing and Follow Through

[SAump]

RULING 20: With R1 on first base, the right-handed batter B2 swings hard and misses the pitch. The catcher, seeing R1 slow in returning to first, attempts to pick him off. B2's follow-through by the bat hits the catcher and causes his throw to sail into right field. RULING: The ball is dead and the B2 is declared out for batter interference. R1 is returned to first base. A batter is responsible for the follow-through of a bat when he swings. (7-3-5c)

I read the old rule as making any other movement which hinders and incorrectly believed the swing and follow through were protected by rule. Not any more. Any idea why FED is splitting hairs once again?

[bossman72]

the part about the batter being responsible for his follow through has been in the casebook since i started umpiring, so i don't think that's a new thing.

Plus, i'm not too sure what you're asking

[Dave Hensley]

The FED ruling is pretty consistent with OBR interpretation, as well. If a backswing interferes with a catcher's attempt to make a play, it's interference and the batter is out, runners return. If the backswing hits the catcher before he's secured the pitch and prevents him from even starting a play, it's weak interference and the runner is sent back, no out recorded. In the FED ruling you're citing, the catcher is making a play so the interference is penalized with an out.

[SAump]

That wasn't BI. If B2 hit F2 on his natural follow through, then F2 was setting up too close. If F2 was successful at 1B, the out was legal. If not, R1 had to return to 1B because of incidental contact by B2. Same ruling with R1 stealing 2B. No runner on and it is also just incidental contact.

I was unaware of BI on B2's follow through being in any casebook. Now it reappears in the NFHS 2007 Baseball Rules Interpretations. Is this a new BRD between OBR, NCAA and NFHS?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

The FED ruling is pretty consistent with OBR interpretation, as well. If a backswing interferes with a catcher's attempt to make a play, it's interference and the batter is out, runners return. If the backswing hits the catcher before he's secured the pitch and prevents him from even starting a play, it's weak interference and the runner is sent back, no out recorded. In the FED ruling you're citing, the catcher is making a play so the interference is penalized with an out.

I guess I was confusing the issue with weak interference. I see catchers set up real close by the way they catch the ball, just inches from the swinging bat. I see the batter's follow through turning his shoulders with the bat still in his hands and thought the catcher was just as responsible as the batter for this type of incidental contact/trainwreck/tangle-untangle situation.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

The FED ruling is pretty consistent with OBR interpretation, as well. If a backswing interferes with a catcher's attempt to make a play, it's interference and the batter is out, runners return. If the backswing hits the catcher before he's secured the pitch and prevents him from even starting a play, it's weak interference and the runner is sent back, no out recorded. In the FED ruling you're citing, the catcher is making a play so the interference is penalized with an out.

Dave,

Huh??

I believe the FED and OBR rulings in the situation you describe are very different.

In FED, the batter is out, whether the "backswing contact" occurs before, during, or after the catcher controls the pitch.

In OBR, the catcher is allowed to continue his attempt to play on the runner if he is able. If his immediate initial throw results in an out on the runner, the out stands. Otherwise, the runner is returned and the batter is not out.

JM

[LittleLeagueBob]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

In FED, the batter is out, whether the "backswing contact" occurs before, during, or after the catcher controls the pitch.

In OBR, the catcher is allowed to continue his attempt to play on the runner if he is able. If his immediate initial throw results in an out on the runner, the out stands. Otherwise, the runner is returned and the batter is not out.

Yes, this is another one of the FED differences that I love so much...

Case Play 7.3.5 Situation F:

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 base 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.


I had always thought once F2 didn't catch it cleanly, the batter shouldn't be penalized for it -- I had to read this case play several times b/c it didn't "feel" right..I guess not a huge deal b/c the odds of it happening probably are negligible...I'll enforce it, but I'll also give the coach a little more leeway when "discussing" it!

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

Yes, this is another one of the FED differences that I love so much...

Case Play 7.3.5 Situation F:

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 base 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.


I had always thought once F2 didn't catch it cleanly, the batter shouldn't be penalized for it -- I had to read this case play several times b/c it didn't "feel" right..I guess not a huge deal b/c the odds of it happening probably are negligible...I'll enforce it, but I'll also give the coach a little more leeway when "discussing" it!

When you say this is an "NFHS" difference, please explain:

From the Jaksa/Roder manual (page 96):

Example 8: R2, 2 strikes on batter. Batter swings at pitch in the dirt, ball is blocked into the air by the catcher. Batter's backswing contacts ball and knocks it several feet away. Ruling: Batter is out, runner returns to second.

This is a clear OBR reference, so how is there a "FED difference?"

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Dave,

Huh??

I believe the FED and OBR rulings in the situation you describe are very different.

In FED, the batter is out, whether the "backswing contact" occurs before, during, or after the catcher controls the pitch.

In OBR, the catcher is allowed to continue his attempt to play on the runner if he is able. If his immediate initial throw results in an out on the runner, the out stands. Otherwise, the runner is returned and the batter is not out.

JM

Hmmm. Well, no wonder those high school coaches were *****ing so much.

Thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

When you say this is an "NFHS" difference, please explain:

From the Jaksa/Roder manual (page 96):

Example 8: R2, 2 strikes on batter. Batter swings at pitch in the dirt, ball is blocked into the air by the catcher. Batter's backswing contacts ball and knocks it several feet away. Ruling: Batter is out, runner returns to second.

This is a clear OBR reference, so how is there a "FED difference?"

In the JR play, the pitch was strike three. The BR isn't allowed to advance on the weak interference. So, BR is out, even though it was an uncaught third strike.

I agree with the others that (a) the ruling has been in FED "forever", and (b) it's different from OBR.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with the others that (a) the ruling has been in FED "forever", and (b) it's different from OBR.

Yes, there is essentially no 'weak interference' provision in FED - its either BI (with the normal penalization) or nothing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PWL

Aren't back swing and follow through two different things entirely? Are they both being interpreted the same way?

When OBR uses "backswing" it means "follow through". I don't know how JR means it.

In all codes, if B1 hits F2's mitt on the (true) backswing (i.e., when getting the bat in a position to swing), then kill the play.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In the JR play, the pitch was strike three. The BR isn't allowed to advance on the weak interference. So, BR is out, even though it was an uncaught third strike.

I agree with the others that (a) the ruling has been in FED "forever", and (b) it's different from OBR.

Right, but in Little League Bob's example it was an uncaught strike three as well. I was just pointing out there is no difference from FED to OBR.

[LittleLeagueBob]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

Right, but in Little League Bob's example it was an uncaught strike three as well. I was just pointing out there is no difference from FED to OBR.

mrm -

I hadn't focused on the 3rd K aspect until now - thanks for the J/R example showing the similarity b/t FED & OBR in this case. I zoned in on the part that stated F2 "is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through." -- it seemed illogical that the batter should be penalized w/an out b/c of F2's inability to catch the ball -- how is the batter supposed to guess where the ball might end up and avoid it?? {rhetorical question}.

My BRD is at home - I'll check it tonight and post any clarification/correction it may have...thanks!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

Right, but in Little League Bob's example it was an uncaught strike three as well. I was just pointing out there is no difference from FED to OBR.

Sorry. I was still on the OP, which had no D3K issues.