Backswing hit the catcher on a steal attempt

[DG]

Interesting. When I saw it I thought "why is the runner not out"? Well, FED rule is that if batter interferes after a 3rd strike runner may be ruled out if, in umpire judgement, interference prevents the 2nd out (DP as they call it). That would be a hard sell in my view, and not the case in OBR, just return runner.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by DG

Interesting. When I saw it I thought "why is the runner not out"? Well, FED rule is that if batter interferes after a 3rd strike runner may be ruled out if, in umpire judgement, interference prevents the 2nd out (DP as they call it). That would be a hard sell in my view, and not the case in OBR, just return runner.

Funny you bring that up, I looked up FED too after I saw the play. The two case plays I found call for an out for BI in both. 7.3.5f and 8.4.1h

[DG]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Funny you bring that up, I looked up FED too after I saw the play. The two case plays I found call for an out for BI in both. 7.3.5f and 8.4.1h

Have not looked up yet, but if so the Case Plays are removing umpire judgement, from the RULE. Not unprecedented for FED, I don't suppose. Still a hard sell, since very few Coaches know anything about the case book.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by DG

Have not looked up yet, but if so the Case Plays are removing umpire judgement, from the RULE. Not unprecedented for FED, I don't suppose. Still a hard sell, since very few Coaches know anything about the case book.

I agree completely. My rating will go in the toilet for that game if I ever have to make the call. I saw the case play citations in J/R, then double checked the case book and there's not a lot of room for judgment in the FED interps on this play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Funny you bring that up, I looked up FED too after I saw the play. The two case plays I found call for an out for BI in both. 7.3.5f and 8.4.1h

Those case plays have either no runners or a non-stealing runner. The point of these plays is that the pitch doesn't become a "D3K" when the batter's follow-through interferes with F2. The batter is out and the ball is dead. This is consistent with OBR.

Cases 7.3.5C and 8.4.2L are more on-point.

And, fwiw, umpires who start with FED and then move to OBR are just as mystified by the difference. They don't understand why a batter wouldn't be responsible for his follow-through and why the offense isn't penalized for the action. (Batter swings and falls over the plate -- get the second out; batter swings and contacts the catcher with the follow through -- return the runner. Why the difference?)

I've made the call 1/2 dozen or so times. Sometimes returning the runner, sometimes getting the second out. Never more than a brief discussion / explanation to the coach.

[Rich Ives]

The OBR Ruling:

MLBUM

6.9 BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire's judgment unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is still in the batter's box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.

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).

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, fwiw, umpires who start with FED and then move to OBR are just as mystified by the difference. They don't understand why a batter wouldn't be responsible for his follow-through and why the offense isn't penalized for the action. (Batter swings and falls over the plate -- get the second out; batter swings and contacts the catcher with the follow through -- return the runner. Why the difference?)

I believe the difference is that one is considered "full blown" interference and the other is "weak" interference.

FED is just a different animal altogether with it's rule set.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I believe the difference is that one is considered "full blown" interference and the other is "weak" interference.

But *why* are they considered different things? They both are interference, and interference with a play. So, why the different treatment?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

But *why* are they considered different things? They both are interference, and interference with a play. So, why the different treatment?

Why three strikes and four balls?

Some things just are.

In this case it's probably due to having the bat hit the catcher because the catcher stepped into its path. Catchers (once trained), with a runner going, tend to jump into throwing position as the pitch is arriving - so it's partly his fault.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Those case plays have either no runners or a non-stealing runner. The point of these plays is that the pitch doesn't become a "D3K" when the batter's follow-through interferes with F2. The batter is out and the ball is dead. This is consistent with OBR.

Cases 7.3.5C and 8.4.2L are more on-point.

And, fwiw, umpires who start with FED and then move to OBR are just as mystified by the difference. They don't understand why a batter wouldn't be responsible for his follow-through and why the offense isn't penalized for the action. (Batter swings and falls over the plate -- get the second out; batter swings and contacts the catcher with the follow through -- return the runner. Why the difference?)

I've made the call 1/2 dozen or so times. Sometimes returning the runner, sometimes getting the second out. Never more than a brief discussion / explanation to the coach.

Haven't read the case plays you're suggesting...but don't you need runners for BI? I don't think those plays are in place strictly for bases empty and the backswing hits the catcher. Maybe they are?

[DG]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Haven't read the case plays you're suggesting...but don't you need runners for BI? I don't think those plays are in place strictly for bases empty and the backswing hits the catcher. Maybe they are?

No runners, batter swings at strike 3 and his backswing makes contact with catchers glove and ball pops out. Dead ball. I don't know but I expect the scorer would give the pitcher a K and batter definitely out for BI. One of the two case plays was just that, the other had runners and they returned to their bases on the dead ball.

[johnnyg08]

Yes, that would be an example. I agree with you and that is in the case play.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

No runners, batter swings at strike 3 and his backswing makes contact with catchers glove and ball pops out. Dead ball. I don't know but I expect the scorer would give the pitcher a K and batter definitely out for BI. One of the two case plays was just that, the other had runners and they returned to their bases on the dead ball.

Batter's out on the K AND BI? Is that an unassisted double play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Batter's out on the K AND BI? Is that an unassisted double play?

It's similar to a D3K -- pitcher gets a K, batter is out 2U or 2-3

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Batters out on the K AND BI? Is that an unassisted double play?

How can you have a strikeout and batters interference? When the batter is out on strikes, he immediately becomes a batter-runner.