Braves/Giants play in the 13th

[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.