Didn't know?

[joelope]

I had a situation last night. Runner on 2nd. Pitch to batter was swung at and missed (strike) ball went off of catchers glove toward first base dugout (but stayed on field) batters bat after his initial swing came around and hit the catchers glove after ball already was missed. Runner went to third as catcher retrieved ball. I called nothing and just let the play go. Third base coach just questioned me that something should have happened that the batters' bat hit the catchers' glove. What should I have done?

[jdmara]

In other words, on the follow-through the bat hit the catchers glove? I would do nothing in that case either. Am I reading the question correctly? The bat hit the glove after he went allllll the way around (behind his back) and then hit the glove?

-Josh

[Robert E. Harrison]

Batter is responsible for his follow through. He had his attempt at the pitch and it is over. If you thought he interfered with the catchers ability to play the ball, you could have called offensive interference. I would only call that if the follow through and subsequent contact with the catcher somehow incapacitated the catcher to the point that he could not get the ball.

[joelope]

Yes, Josh it went all the way around (follow through) before it hit the glove.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by joelope

I had a situation last night. Runner on 2nd. Pitch to batter was swung at and missed (strike) ball went off of catchers glove toward first base dugout (but stayed on field) batters bat after his initial swing came around and hit the catchers glove after ball already was missed. Runner went to third as catcher retrieved ball. I called nothing and just let the play go. Third base coach just questioned me that something should have happened that the batters' bat hit the catchers' glove. What should I have done?

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[mbyron]

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?

[bob jenkins]

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)

[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".

[mbyron]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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"