Braves/Giants play in the 13th

[Nevadaref]

The play in question: during Aaron Rowand's at bat which eventually scored Juan Uribe with the winning run. There was a swing and miss on a steal attempt of 2nd. The backswing caught Braves catcher Brian McCann as he threw to 2nd. The throw went wide and the runner ended up on third, eventually scoring on an infield hit.

Did the Braves get the short end of an incorrect rule application versus the Giants in the 13th inning or is this strictly a judgment call which didn't go their way?

Does rule 6.06(c) Comment apply? It seems to say that the proper call for unintentional contact on the backswing is a strike and the returning of any runners to their bases, but some aspects of that paragraph don't exactly fit with this situation. Specifically the words "before the catcher has securely held the ball" was not the case on this play as the contact was after the ball had been caught and while the catcher was throwing to 2nd. Also, the batter was within the box. Out of the box is mentioned earlier in this rule section, but not directly in this paragraph.


I'm not a baseball umpire. I'm just a fan who enjoys the game, but as I officiate other sports, I desire to know the correct application of the rules.

Thanks for any help from you guys who are experts at this.

[Jay R]

I saw this play and wondered about it as well. This was not your classic backswing hits catcher. It was more catcher moves into bat. Rowand swung and missed and he did not move towards the plate, he stayed in his box throughout the play. What was odd is that Rowand kept his bat behind him after finishing his swing (almost like a glofer who pauses at the end of the swing). The catcher McCann came up and as he threw to second base, he made contact with the bat, the bat didn't "hit" him, he hit the bat. McCann mildly argued with the umpire (Tim Tschida) for interference. The base stealer scored the winning run on the next pitch I believe.

[bob jenkins]

Didn't see the play, but if the contact happened as F2 was throwing the ball, then 6.06(c) doesn't apply. That rule applies when the contact occurs before / as the catcher is catching the pitch.

If the contact happened during the throw, then the regular BI rules apply, and apparently the umpire judged that it wasn't interference.

[rbmartin]

Rule 6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when...(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

Rule 6.06(c) Comment:...If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

pt 1 - out of the batter’s box..NO
pt 2 - making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base..MAYBE, but this was during his natural swing
pt 3 - If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball,...NO

After seeing the play, in view of all of this, looks like a good no-call.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jay R

The catcher McCann came up and as he threw to second base, he made contact with the bat, the bat didn't "hit" him, he hit the bat.

I did not see the play, but if this description is correct it would explain the no-call. F2 moving into the batter during his throw is not BI.

We watch for the batter to do something here: be off balance, fall into F2 during the throw, step across the plate, etc. Sounds like none of that happened.

This is not "weak interference" or "backswing interference" (which does not exist in FED rules) for the reason already given: F2 had already secured the ball when the contact occurred.

[Steven Tyler]

I saw the play. Good no call. Uribe was stealing second and Rowand was protecting him by swinging. Rowand let go of the bat with his top hand. When McCann came up throwing, he moved into the bat of Rowand and created the contact himself. Giants won on an infield hit a few pitches later.

Bobby Cox didn't argue. Why? He had been tossed earlier in the game.

[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.

[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.