I think I finally get it. Like UmpJM said, it IS INTERFERENCE. You make the 'that's inteference' call, and you bring R1 back. You don't call B1 out because in your judgement the inteference was not intentional.

Sometimes I'm dense.

Since when are we concerned with the opinon of the defensive manager?

Hmmm.... very good point. :rolleyes:

ctblu40,

Anytime you manage to piss off BOTH managers with the same call (or, oddly enough, neither), you've got to be pretty confident it was correct. ;)

Not saying that I would have had the presence of mind at the time, but "That's Backswing Interference!" might have been preferable to "That's Interference!".

BTW, I really liked "Not unlike..." - you phrase things like that and it's going to take them a couple of seconds (at least) to figure out what you even said - which, in my experience, has a tendency to kind of defuse the situation somewhat.

Good call, Blu!

JM

I can't remember if it's the red book or the blue book but I think it uses the phrase "backswing hit the catcher !" instead of "that's interference".

Lawrence

Batter interference need not be intentional. For example: batter swings hard and steps in front of F2, interfering with the throw to 2B. If the defense fails to retire R1 stealing, batter is out for BI (assuming it's not strike 3).

Intentional or not has nothing to do with whether you call the batter out. The difference is between "batter interference" and "backswing interference." Call the batter out for the former but not the latter.

Mike, in all my posts I was referring only to backswing interference. My contention is that verbalizing 'thats interference' confuses matters. However, I conceded that it is not technically incorrect to make the verbal call of 'that's interference' and not call the batter out.

OK, I see that now. Given how the two kinds of interference are interwoven in the thread, it's easy to see how readers might be confused.

If you fail to verbalize "that's interference!" good luck explaining to the O-coach why you're sending the runner back. Not only is the verbalization "not technically incorrect," it is the correct and approved mechanic for backswing interference.

Perhaps that's why PBUC wants the mechanic "Backswing hit the catcher!" used....since that phrase does not include the word 'interference', you don't have to explain that point to the coach.

This is in the blue book, Sec 4.11. I just thought to look this morning, duh:o

Thanks guys.

When I was at PBUC (then UDP) I was taught to say, "that's interference". Even though they may have changed this mechanic )based on what other posters have said) I still use it in my games. If the defensive manager comes out to argue that there should be an "out" on the play, I would simply explain to him that its "backswing interference" and tell him that the penalty is that the advancing runner returns to his TOP base and that's it...and that the penalty is not an "out" on the batter, too.

Don't forget that in addition to "backswing interference" we also have "return toss interference" (which could be committed by the batter, too). They are closely related, and as I remember (since I don't have it out in front of me) they are discussed in the same section of the J/R manual.

The last couple of clinics I've been to we have been told to call 'backswing inteference'. However, the one time I called it as such this season led to a discussion with both coach's.