It is, 100 today. Got a DH tomorrow.

Well I guess you can do what J/R says or rule the correct way. This interp is taught at pro school and has been documented in past PBUC manuals.

Well, we've got MikeStrybel writing that J/R (page 96) says one thing, and UmpTTS43 writing that past PBUC manuals say something else.

I can't find a reference to this situation in either J/R or a 2004 PBUC manual.

Would both of you be willing to post the actual reference? E.g. "4.13 in the PBUC manual", or "J/R chapter 13, Section 1, Interference Without a Play: Return Toss and Backswing".

Quoting the actual text would be even better, since many of us may not have the particluar edition/year of these manuals.

I have both references as well. I paraphrased the ruling from J/R already in addition to stating which page it was on.

Page 96 of the current edition of Jaksa/Roder -

Backswing: A batter's backswing occurs after he has swung through the pitch, and he continues his wing all the way around until the bat reaches the vicinity of the catcher.

It cannot be any clearer. Taking away the bat on an aborted bunt attempt is not a backswing; it does not meet the criteria of trying to hit the ball and then allowing momentum to carry the bat "all the way around". J/R's words, not mine.

Mike,

So, the question is, what do you call if the batter legitimately pulls his bat back after squaring to bunt - late enough that there is no way that he's going to try to swing and with no intent to contact the catcher - and the bat and the catcher's mitt come into contact?

Let's say a runner is attempting to advance on the play.

No intent by either player and the batter has had and unilaterally declined his opportunity to offer at the pitch.

What's the call and why?

JM

John, I thought I addressed this a few posts ago.

He simply declined to bunt. He is still entitled to a full swing and the catcher prevented that from happening. Further, I have seen guys square, a brush back pitch ensues, tha catcher rises as the batter spins away with his bat striking the catcher's mitt. Each time, the PU sends him to first. The onus is on the catcher, if no intent is displayed by the batter. That call comes from J/R, page and rule noted several times.

If I am the defensive coach, I may not like it but the catcher is required to let him hit the ball until it arrives in foul territory. Even then, the catcher must not impede the batter's opportunity to strike at a pitch. Again, that comes from the ruling in the current J/R. CI is not an immediate dead ball so the runner advances at his own risk.

Mike,

To repost your quote from J/R:

J/R explicitly says it is NOT CI.

JM

Okay John, I missed the clairvoyancy lessons in pro school years ago. During that microsecond that the batter pulls his back from a square, I will give him the benefit of the doubt when his bat is contacted by the catcher's mitt. I have seen far too many guys show bunt only to pull back and try a chop swing at the ball, mostly pitchers or guys struggling at the plate. I have seen more than a few get spun by a brush back while squaring and be interfered with by the catcher. If a catcher sticks his mitt into the zone and the bat is hit, I penalize the catcher, unless I see intent from the batter. You are free to penalize the batter or ignore the contact, as you see fit.

A batter does not give up his opportunity to swing at a pitch simply because he pulls back from a bunt. A bunt is not a swing. They are defined and treated very differently. I know that you know this. J/R says that the opportunity to swing must be abandoned. It is not in your play.

I'm taking my son to the batting cage now. He has his final regular season game tomorrow night and I want to see him do well. I think I get more grey hairs watching him pitch than bat, but a Dad always likes to see his son round first safely.

It doesn't take clairvoyance... and at this point I think you're just being difficult. Use the OP video as an example if you need... but the question here is whether if IN YOUR JUDGEMENT as PU the batter is not going to swing after pulling a bunt back - is it still CI. The video is actually perfect for this - the only way we could judge, with relative certainty, that the batter is not going to swing is when the bunt pullback is coming back just barely ahead of the pitch itself.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that if the batter pulls back a bunt significantly earlier than this, with timing such that a swing is possible, and contacts the catcher - it IS CI. The disagreement comes when it is rather obvious there's no time for a swing.

I find this exchange to be irritating. UmpTTS43 wrote: "Under OBR, when the batter pulls his bat back on an aborted bunt attempt and the bat hits F2 in a legal position, it is considered 'backswing int'."

You then wrote that "J/R states differently."

Now it turns out that you based that on a definition of backswing interference! No, UmpTTS43 didn't say an aborted bunt attempt is the definition of backswing interference; he said it is considered to be backswing intereference. Considered means: "is treated in the same way as backswing interference".

In no way does J/R refute UmpTTS43 or in fact even discuss this particular situation.

Mike - I was not trying to be difficult. In post #4, a specific question was asked and I addressed it. It had nothing to do with the video. I was then asked by another to reconsider the video and tell me what I would have. I don't see BI. As I stated at least twice now, consider the batter who squares and then is brushed back. He spins inwardly and his bat is contacted by the catcher who is tracking the pitch - that is CI. The OP has something similar. The title of the MLB video is...umpires misses interference call. I did not write that headline, an MLB employee did!

Dave - I cited J/R on the definition of a backswing - that is what UMPTTS43 referred to, remember? He provided no citation, while I did. Saying that OBR considers it as such is not a citation. I also reported J/R's ruling on CI. Further, I addressed the difference between an abandonment of a swing and a bunt, as well. If you can dispute J/R, please show us all. I am merely using the words from the current edition, not creating them.

As noted, if you wish to penalize the batter for this play, go ahead. I won't. That is not arrogance, it is a concession. I don't feel like repeating the same material ad nauseum and trying to convince you to make the same call. J/R states that the onus is on the catcher unless the batter INTENTIONALLY strikes the catcher with his bat while the catcher is on foul territory. Again, read J/R on page 117 and see for yourself. If you still disagree with Chris and Rick, call them. Rick loves discussing plays and giving advice. I have had several discussions with him and his knowledge of the game is amazing. I'm sure he will be happy to edit his book if you convince him he is wrong. He has done so in the past.

By the way, this is backswing interference: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8272771

Cubs versus Yankees on Friday. Yanks have R1 and he is off on the pitch. The batter swings and misses; Soto receives the pitch, stands to throw down to second and the backswing hits the catcher in the back of his head. PU tosses his hands up for 'Time", points at the batter, makes a twirl with his right index finger and sends the runner back to first. Batter remained in the box.

Backswing interference on display.

Was that "twirl" of the index finger a prescribed signal for backswing interference, or was it the PU indicating "Whoopee! I get to call backswing interference!"?
:p

JJ

John, decorum prevented him from doing the moonwalk.