Odd Yanks-Royals call today
 

Did anyone see the odd call in the bottom of the 4th in the Yankees-Royals game today?

Johnny Damon was stealing, and Derek Jeter swung at a pitch, which caused him to move a little in toward the plate. As catcher John Buck was throwing to 2B, Jeter, apparently in an attempt to avoid contact, bent over the plate, and Buck threw over him. It appeared that there was some contact.

Umpire Wally Bell sent Damon back to first and let Jeter continue his at bat.

The announcers were puzzled, and a little while later they claimed to have received a "ruling," which was that on inadvertent interference by the batter, a stealing runner is simply returned to his original base. They then went on to remind the fans (several times) that if Jeter had been called for intentional interference, Damon (!) would have been called out.

Of course, 6.06 (c) and Comment clearly say that the batter is out, not the runner.

But 6.06 (c) doesn't say anything about "inadvertent" or "unintentional" batter interference, only that if the batter's backswing hits the catcher or the ball before the catcher has securely held the ball, it's a strike only, and the runner cannot advance.

The log in the New York Times describes the play thus:

"NOTE: Unintentional contact on Derek Jeter sent Johnny Damon back to first resulting in no stolen base."

I'm thinking that Bell got it wrong. It's either (1) INT on Jeter and Jeter's out with Damon returning, or (2) no INT and Damon's safe at 2B. Anyone know something I'm missing?

The umpires made up a new rule to please Jeter. Whenever there is a call, the benefit of the doubt goes to Jeter by default. That's the only explanation I can think of. Got to stay on his good side, even if he is only slightly better than average by MLB playing standards.

My Take On It
 

I bet it had something to do w/ the swing prior to interference saving Jeter's at-bat.
Jeter would have been ruled out for interference had he not swung.

J/R probably discusses the matter and references the same OBR rule.
There is probably a case play in MLBUM or PBUC to go with it citing dead ball interference.
{no bases can be run, no outs can be made}

Well.......
 

I want to hear an explanation too.

It's either INF or it's not, you can't be half pregnant in this situation. We got something, or we got nothing.

And if the crew missed something, then why wasn't a manager out getting ejected in this situation? If I was on a bench, I'm buying a ticket to the shower. You either have no INF (with contact of F2), or INF and no out. You can't have a do over.

From a news account:

"Damon lost a stolen base in the fourth inning after home-plate umpire Wally Bell ruled that Jeter interfered with catcher John Buck as Buck threw down to second. Damon was sent back to first, instead of being called out because Jeter's bat hit Buck on the backswing. "

So all is right in the world.

Jeter's bat hit Buck on the backswing

Not in the game I was watching. That is, if you interpret backswing to mean the continuous traveling of the bat around and behind the batter after the swing. Or does it mean some sort of reversal of the bat back toward and across the plate after the swing? Even then, that didn't occur in this situation. Jeter simply swung and leaned over the plate. Maybe there's a picture somewhere on the web.

Maybe Bell checked 6.06 (c) after the game and then gave the reporters explanation that fit the rule.

Backswing certainly means something different in golf.

From the New York Times: "Damon was sent back to first, instead of being called out . . ." Even the Grey Lady thinks the runner is out on batter INT.

by simply reading what happened as described in the OP I knew it was backswing interference. Seems pretty logical/easy etc.

That's the motion. I'm not going to quote the whole PBUC rule, or the similar comments in J/R, but the PBUC Manual titles the rule "Backswing Hits Catcher", and it refers to the bat hitting the catcher or ball in back (hence the name) of the batter during the follow through.

PBUC manual doesn't call it backswing interference, because it isn't interference at all, but only a dead ball strike, and no runners can advance.

J/R terms it confusingly one kind of "interference without a play", and according to them, it is interference, but it is still only a dead ball strike.

Apparently the Grey Lady hasn't read all the interps!

Yes, but
 

Gray here says we have something different, and I hope it is not a case of backing and filling because PU missed a call.

Assuming (yeah, I know) that was sarcasm -- well done.

On the OP, I didn't see it, but the explanation (weak interference) makes sense if that's what happened. If not, then they likely kicked it. Not the first time, won't be the last.

I typed
Yankees Royals Jeter Damon followthrough
into Google. The first entry is this Official Forum thread, and the second is this link:
http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/thread/9948265

It appears to be a thread (40 pages!) in which people are commenting on the game as it happens. Here's a 3 consecutive posts:

1:50 pm Ponson is getting all the Royals hitters to swing early in the count..Jeter with a horrible error
1:55 pm Damon hits it hard so it's scored a base hit...Yankees gotta get somethin going here
1:58 pm WTF. That was Jeters follow through that hit Buck....Now instead of being 1-1, its 1st and 2nd...wow

Absent an elaborate cover-up effort (by MLB? Wally Bell?) involving fake posts, I'd say that at least one TV observer of the game saw something or heard commentary that supports the call.

very interesting call...I'm waiting for some of the regulars to chime in here with something other than "Jeter gets all the calls" BS.

That was Jeter's follow through that hit Buck....Now instead of being 1-1, its 1st and 2nd...wow

In any case, that didn't make it "1st and 2nd." It was Damon back to 1st with Jeter still up. The Yankees announcers didn't say anything about follow through or backswing at all. They said they couldn't understand the call, and later declared that they had received the ruling that on "inadvertent" interference, the runner returns with the batter still up. But what do they know? They thought that if Jeter had interfered, the runner would be out.

I wish there were pictures of the play. No way it was "backswing," though you could argue that Jeter's "follow through" carried him out over the plate to cause the contact (which would likely be INT).

Remember that 6.06 (c) mentions the backswing hitting the catcher or the ball before the catcher has securely held the ball. This contact occurred on the throw to 2B, well after Buck secured the ball.

Wow, you're not usually this "mule-like".
The guy writing the comment is a Yankee fan, who believes that Damon should have been left at 2nd instead of returning to 1st, and then when Jeter hit his single, Daman would have scored, making the score of the game 1 to 1.
You didn't see contact on the follow through; somebody else watching the game did, or heard some announcer say it.


This seems to be the ol' "I don't like ruling so I'm going to insist on following the rules exactly as written."
As I already told you, this issue is covered in the PBUC manual and in J/R. It's also in the BRD (#262 in my 2004 edition), because FED has an out, while NCAA and OBR have, well, the ruling that Bell gave at the game.

From the PBUC:
"This interpretatin 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 strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, "Time" is called......."

Thanks, Dave. Your explanation makes sense.