Backswing hit the catcher on a steal attempt
 

Saw it in the Phili/Atlanta game today.

They called him out on a swinging strike three and returned the runner to 1B

If it wasn't strike three, we have "backswing hit the catcher" if the throw does not retire the runner we have "Time" hitter stays up to bat and the AB resumes, with R1 returning to 1B. First time I've seen that play in an MLB game. Nobody is out unless the throw retires the runner.

I've seen it a couple of times. I think I was the only fan in my section that understood what had just happened the one time I saw it live.

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

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.

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.

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).

From the original OP didn't see the play in question, but I believe this would be called "weak" interference in MLB. No penalty, just return the runner to his TOP base.

As for your case book plays in FED, batter is always for responsible for his back swing or follow through. Must be more of a safety rule than anything else.

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.

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

Had this play during our series on Sat.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

He's either out on the strikeout or out on the BI right?

On any strikeout a pitcher gets a K no matter what.

On a "normal" K the catcher gets the putout.

On a uncaught 3rd the putout goes to whoever made the putout on whoever was out - possiblities:

1) F2 tags batter - F2 gets the putout on the batter-runner.
2) F2 throws to 1B - F3 (probably) gets the putout on the batter-runner.
3) Bases loaded, F2 steps on home plate while holding the ball - F2 gets a putout, R3 is the one out, B-R reaches on a FC.

On an interference call, the closest fielder gets the putout on whoever is out.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about scoring. Yawn. Carry on.