Braves/Giants play in the 13th

[UmpJM]

Guys,

I didn't see the play, but, as described, it sounds like the MLBUM thinks it shoudl have been "backswing/weak interference":

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).

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Guys,

I didn't see the play, but, as described, it sounds like the MLBUM thinks it should have been "backswing/weak interference":

John, I think it still makes a difference whether the backswing hit F2 or F2 hit the (motionless) bat.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

Interesting theory (a la 6.05(h) ), but I don't think I buy it. Because it would give the batter license to "hold" his follow through in a way designed to hinder the catcher's ability to throw.

I found a video clip on mlb.com and I definitely would have called it backswing interference.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | ATL@SF: Glaus lines an RBI single to left field - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia (2nd row, middle clip)

It looked to me like the PU simply didn't see it - he was pretty well screened by the catcher's body. After the throw, you can see him look down to check the batter's feet to make sure he's in the box.

JM

[ozzy6900]

I disagree with weak interference. The bat did not strike the catcher, the catcher moved into the bat, so there is no interference. It is a "no call".

This link takes you right to the video
ATL/SF Weak Interference or No Call?

[UmpTTS43]

Just another classic baseball "train wreck." Can't expect batter and bat to disappear. Both were doing their jobs within the scope of the rules. Great no-call.

[dash_riprock]

I think it's definitely a close one.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Interesting theory (a la 6.05(h) ), but I don't think I buy it. Because it would give the batter license to "hold" his follow through in a way designed to hinder the catcher's ability to throw.

I found a video clip on mlb.com and I definitely would have called it backswing interference.

Two things you can't buy. Experience and good judgment.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Guys,

I didn't see the play, but, as described, it sounds like the MLBUM thinks it shoudl have been "backswing/weak interference":



JM

I stand corrected.

[BaBa Booey]

I saw the play as it happened and even with the MLBUM interp, I'm not sure if it is interference. However, I don't think Tschida saw it (after all, McCann moved into the bat, so his body would have completely blocked Tschida out. Tschida does seem to be very confident (not agressive, but affirmative) in his conversation with McCann afterwords which sorta makes me wonder if he did see it and just decided it wasn't int. Who knows.

[Rufus]

Full disclosure - I'm a Brave's fan but think the 14 baserunners they left stranded and the hanging slider Wagner served up to Renteria had much more to do with them losing the game than this call/no-call.

The comments about the C running into the bat got me thinking about what criteria you look for in this type of situation. McCann was in the process of throwing. It didn't appear he leaned over to run into the bat while making his throw, just ran into it as a consequence of trying to make a play.

I guess the question is - What characterstics do you all look for when determining interference/obstruction? Is it intent (e.g., batter waves the bat in front of the catcher on the swing follow-through) or just the fact that, in your judgement, interference existed (definition of interference from OBR being "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.") not through intent but just by the fact that the bat was there?

Again, not looking to stir the pudding, just trying to understand the thought process behind the determination.

[GA Umpire]

I think it was a close one. I think it was ruled that McCann hit the bat, not the bat hit him.

If that is it, it sounds like "weak INT" doesn't apply since the interpretation seems to say the bat has to hit the catcher which doesn't appear to be the case.