Time for Ya'll to teach me something:
 

"Case Book 7.3.5 Situation F:

Situation: With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores.

Ruling: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

Okay, I admit I am confused on this one because it flies in the face of logic (my logic, so obviously it is failed logic). There is nothing intentional being done.

F2 had a chance to field the strike originally. It seems we are rewarding the defense when they erred.

So, is this the same at the NCAA and OBR level?

I am quite upside down on this one.

T

Back Swing Interference
 

Tim, what would you do if R1 was stealing and the back swing hit the catcher as he was throwing? Or if it was strike 3 and in the catchers glove but he dropped it when the back swing hit the catcher? It is the same type of play and you are correct, intent does not have to be present. This is a rule in NCAA and OBR.

In OBR or NCAA, this would be backswing or "weak" interference. The ball is dead, and there is no penalty. In this case, the batter would be out on strikes and R3 would return.

Under OBR we call this "weak interference": strike on the batter, the ball is dead immediately, and runners return to their TOP bases.

Since FED doesn't want a different kind of interference, and they don't want to permit the offense to benefit from the batter's hindrance of F2, the only option is to call the batter out for INT.

Regardless of the count on the batter?

This is one of the Fed rules that I always have to highlight because it goes against intuitive thinking.

Roder calls it "interference without a play". If nothing was happening, you kill it right there. No one gets to move up, batter is OK in OBR. In Fed, its batter interference. I dread the day that I make this call.

I see what you mean: if the batter's out on strike 3 and then interferes, then we CAN (but need not) call a runner out for the batter's INT. Call out the runner who was being played on or, if that can't be determined, the runner closest to home. 7.3.5C,D

The penalty here is the same for any BI.

Tee as others mentioned there is no such animal as "weak interference" in FED, hence the penalty per the case play.

However, in this particular play the results are the same. B3 is out and R3 returned to 3rd base.

A little twist
The count was 1-1

In OBR the call would be

1. TIME
2. The count is now 1-2
3. R3 returned to 3rd base.

I think JR was one of the first to coin the phrase weak interference which as mentioned is NOT in any of the FED interps.

If you have "connections" to the FED perhaps you can "sway them" to adopt the weak interference call.

Pete Booth

Umpires who "start" with OBR and then go to FED find this ruling strange.

Umpires who "start" with FED and then go to OBR find the OBR "weak interference" ruling strange.

The proper mechanic is: "Time! That's a do-over and a strike on the swing."

OK, Phase II
 

Now let's say the ball is secured in F2's glove when the batter's follow-through causes the same result?

Batter would be out on Strike Three but what happens to the runner in NFHS rules?

T

If there's a reasonable chance that the defense would have retired the runner without the interference, then get the second out. If there's not such a chance, then return the runner.

Similar to 7.3.5C (and see also 8.4.2L)

Bob Jenkins is too quick
 

It's just like any other INF call in FED.

Batter is out, runner return, no added penalty. Just as if it is a regular INF on strike 3.

T, isn't the FED philosophy always to punish the offending team to the maximum extent of the law, so this play just seems to fit with it's existing philosophy?

John:
 

Sadly it is all the other rules codes that punish with the out closest to home.

With this years change of the runner contacting F5 in foul territory and calling that runner out is the first movement toward consistantly increasing penalties.

The National High School Coaches Association has been trying for the last five years to get rules changes at the FED national level so that the high school rule book more closely mirrors OBR.

T

Yes, you are right, but does not FED have the other priority; making things as easy to call as possible for its umpires? Max punishment + simple to call/remember= this ruling?