Backswing (follow through) Interference
 

American Legion (OBR)
R2- stealing on pitch, 1 out, no count on B1.

B1 swings and misses at the pitch, his follow through hits F2's throwing hand as he is throwing to retire R2 at 3rd.

I call "That's Interference" while pointing at B1. The throw is wide left, and unsuccessful at putting R2 out. I call "Time!, You (pointing at B1), stay there! You (pointing at R2) back to second!"

Offensive manager is upset because I put R2 back... then defensive manager is upset (he was getting pretty close to being run, he stopped after I warned him) because I did not declare B1 out.

Did I screw the pooch?

Looking at OBR 6.06 (c)
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of 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.

In your situation, F2 had secure posession of the ball and was attempting to throw the ball so the last part of the comment really doesn't apply. As with any BI call the batter isn't expected to simply disappear.

Because the batter didn't do anything out of the ordinary to get in the way of the catcher, I would have called nothing and let the play stand.

Yes. Once F2 has secure control of the ball, the play becomes interference (not weak interference).

..and if the batter did nothing otherwise deliberate to interfere, you didn't have INT.

If it happened as you say ("B1 swings and misses at the pitch, his follow through hits F2's throwing hand as he is throwing to retire R2 at 3rd.") and F2 did not retire R2, then I have Batter Interference, "TIME" R2 back to 2nd base, B1 out (if he interfered, the batter has to be out).

Regards

OOPS -- my mistake.

From MLBUM (emphasis added):

6.9 BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire's judgment unintentionally hits the
catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is
still in the batter's box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead,
however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation
where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the
same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter
would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and
the batter declared out.
This interpretation applies even if the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner.
That is, if the batter is in the batter's box and his normal backswing or follow-through
unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, "Time"
is called and runners return (unless the catcher's initial throw retires the runner).

So I guess posession of the ball by F2 doesn't matter as per 6.06(c).

General rule is: If F2 is unintentionally hit by a swing follow through(if batter remains in batter's box) and F2 cannot make a play on a runner, the play is dead and all runners return to their TOP base.

Thanks for clarifying :)

Didn't the fact you called "that's interference" commit you to calling B1 out? I think that if you didnt' judge the contact to be intentional then you were correct in your ruling, however you should have given the 'that's nothing' signal.

No. </comment>

I suppose it would be like calling 'that's obstruction' and not awarding bases? My question is, you have to have judged intent in order to call B1 out, but not to verbalize 'that's interference'? Or am I splitting hairs?

What's wrong with saying "I called interference, but I was wrong, no interference, runner returns to second base?" An umpire is not "committed" to his call. He can reverse himself if he know he made the wrong ruling. It sure beats reworking a game due to protest.

Guys,

It IS interference - specifically, "backswing interference". The (only) penalty is that a runner attempting to advance is returned to his TOP base unless he was retired by the catcher's throw despite the Backswing Interference.

If it's "Nothing", you don't send the R1 back to 1B (which you do if you want to properly rule on this play).

JM

EXACTLY what the defensive manager said... my response to him was that just because there was interference on the play doesn't mean there is an out. I told him this sitch is not unlike umpire interfing with F2's throw, the runner just returns.

I don't think a good choice of mechanics would be to call "Time" because what if F2's throw retires R2?

Do we agree that I got the call right, even if for the wrong reason?

I agree that you made the correct call. I found something similar to Bob's clarification in the JR manual

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.