The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 05, 2008, 10:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawump
Answer: Under OBR, you probably called it right. This could be "backswing interference" except that there is an exception to backswing interference for wild pitch/pass balls.

From J/R: "R3, pitch in the dirt. There is a swing and a miss and the pitch goes wild past the catcher. The backswing (then) strikes the catcher." Ruling: no interference.

In your case, if F2 clearly misplayed the pitch (pass ball) or it was a wild pitch, and then the batter hit F2 with his backswing, then it is nothing because the backswing interference was not the cause of the runner's advance...the wild pitch/pass ball was.

The key to deciding if it is backswing interference or nothing is NOT whether or not the catcher has possession or not of the ball when he is hit by the backswing. Rather, it is whether the runner is advancing because of the wild pitch or because the catcher was interfered with.

From J/R: R3, pitch in the dirt. Catcher blocks the ball (but does not have possession), when he is hit in the head by the backswing dazing him. As a result, the runner is able to run home safely. Ruling: backswing interference, R3 must return to third. Batter continues with his at-bat unless the swing and miss was strike three.

Thus, an umpire in your situation must use JUDGMENT (oh, no!) to determine the reason for the runner's advance.
FWIW, I'd apply the same ruling in FED.

If it wasn't a passed ball/wild pitch, though, the ruling is different from the above. IT's "weak interference" in OBR and "interference" in FED.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 05, 2008, 10:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
FWIW, I'd apply the same ruling in FED.

If it wasn't a passed ball/wild pitch, though, the ruling is different from the above. IT's "weak interference" in OBR and "interference" in FED.
Bob, if you call batter interference in FED, the batter is out (and runners return). FED does not have the intermediate remedy of merely returning the runner and not calling the batter out, right?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 05, 2008, 01:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
Bob, if you call batter interference in FED, the batter is out (and runners return). FED does not have the intermediate remedy of merely returning the runner and not calling the batter out, right?
Correct. That's what I meant by OBR has "weak interference" and FED has jsut "interference" (or whatever my specific post was)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 05, 2008, 02:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 605
I've never heard of "weak interference"...but that's because I was taught the rules using the J/R Manual (the textbook for the B/F umpire school). J/R calls it "backswing interference" or "return toss interference".

The result is the same, though, as what you describe as "weak interference".
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 06, 2008, 05:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawump
I've never heard of "weak interference"...but that's because I was taught the rules using the J/R Manual (the textbook for the B/F umpire school). J/R calls it "backswing interference" or "return toss interference".

The result is the same, though, as what you describe as "weak interference".
I prefer the term 'backswing interference': the interference isn't weak, the penalty is.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 09, 2008, 08:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I prefer the term 'backswing interference': the interference isn't weak, the penalty is.
And, it's not a "backswing", it's a "follow-through"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1