Does the run score?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

BACKSWING HITS CATCHER - If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that 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 (i.e. the followthrough), 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.

If it applies to strike one and two, it applies to strike three and to that "retired" batter.

Yep, that's the definition of Backswing Interference. Too bad that has nothing to do with our original OP.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Yep, that's the definition of Backswing Interference. Too bad that has nothing to do with our original OP.

There is no interference. Hard to apply a penalty in the OP.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

There is no interference. Hard to apply a penalty in the OP.

As I have stated before, you can't apply 6.06c due to the fact that the interference was caused by a retired batter, not a batter, in which 6.06 applies.

From the MLBUM 6.8 Batter Interferes With Catcher, it discusses the various penalties and criteria for disregarding INT via the "initial throw" interp. At the end of this section, it states "If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter's interference." There is no "initial throw" interp along with this.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

As I have stated before, you can't apply 6.06c due to the fact that the interference was caused by a retired batter, not a batter, in which 6.06 applies.

From the MLBUM 6.8 Batter Interferes With Catcher, it discusses the various penalties and criteria for disregarding INT via the "initial throw" interp. At the end of this section, it states "If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter's interference." There is no "initial throw" interp along with this.

Before you were using 7.09e. Is there a different rule that applies to this OP now? 6.06 applies to interference, I know, but some of us had posted that earlier and you thought it was 7.09e. I'm not trying to be argumentative or prove anything one way or another in my favor, I'm trying to figure out what rule we're using here. Are we sending R3 back to 3rd or not?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Before you were using 7.09e. Is there a different rule that applies to this OP now? 6.06 applies to interference, I know, but some of us had posted that earlier and you thought it was 7.09e. I'm not trying to be argumentative or prove anything one way or another in my favor, I'm trying to figure out what rule we're using here. Are we sending R3 back to 3rd or not?

7.09e is the rule that is used for the orginial OP. Since there is no way to "disregard" this INT, all runners are returned to their bases TOI. So yes, R3 would be sent back to 3rd. 7.09e applies to a batter that has just been put out and 6.06 applies to a batter. Two different situations.

[PeteBooth]

e three and to that "retired" batter.

The aforementioned has NOTHING to do with this OP

Pete Booth

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

As I have stated before, you can't apply 6.06c due to the fact that the interference was caused by a retired batter, not a batter, in which 6.06 applies.

From the MLBUM 6.8 Batter Interferes With Catcher, it discusses the various penalties and criteria for disregarding INT via the "initial throw" interp. At the end of this section, it states "If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter's interference." There is no "initial throw" interp along with this.

UmpTT,

The absence of an interp in the MLBUM on the specific case of a batter having interfered as he strikes out and the catcher subsequently throwing is not probative.

As a matter of fact, there IS a case play - #14 in the "Interference and Obstruction" section of the MLBUM, but it's not really probative either.

Again, the problem I have with applying 7.09(e) is that the conditions for calling interference under 7.09(e) require INTENT to interfere with a throw (or thrown ball) in order to call interference, while under 6.06(c) intent is NOT required. So, if you're using 7.09(e) you don't even HAVE interference on the (recently retired) batter. Clearly, the intent is that a recently retired batter is constrained just as an unretired batter is with respect to hindering the catcher's attempt to retire a runner. Additionally, 7.09(e) explicitly refers to a retired runner or batter-runner, NOT a retired "batter" - if we're going to define our interp by a strictly literal reading of the rule text. (Oddly, under FED rules, but NOT OBR, a batter who has just struck out IS a retired "batter runner". I digress.)

The history and treatment of 7.09(e) (formerly 7.09(f) ) is that it was instituted to constrain a baserunner's actions in attempting to break up a double play, NOT to have a different rule for "recently retired" batter's interference. See section 6.3 "Willful and Deliberate Interference" of the MLBUM (2009 Edition).

JM

P.S. SAump is a master of the non sequitur, so I wouldn't give it much thought.

[SAump]

I still maintain that the batter had not committed interference by his actions after the third strike.

But for the sake of discussion, let us allow that he did commit interference. He is out, but he is already out. So now R1 is out because the umpire decides that is where the runner being played against declared out. Everything is peachy.

But now we already have an out on the runner who was played against and has also been legally declared out, and there was no further play.

7.09f(?) states that "if no other runner is being played against, it is interference without play - the ball is dead and runners must remain at their last legally touched base."

R3 breaks for home on the pitch, score the run, two outs. R3 breaks for home on the catch, return to third, two outs. That is the smallest difference, but it affects my ruling on the play.

[Publius]

[QUOTE=Rich Ives;827683]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

8-1-1-b The batter DOES become a runner then is instantly out if strike three is caught.

Though not explicitly spelled out as it is in FED, it's the same in all codes. That's why the batter, except in double-play situations, is allowed to attempt to reach first base safely when a third strike is uncaught.

[Rich Ives]

[QUOTE=Publius;827913]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Though not explicitly spelled out as it is in FED, it's the same in all codes. That's why the batter, except in double-play situations, is allowed to attempt to reach first base safely when a third strike is uncaught.

Actually the OBR and NCAA rules say he becomes a runner if the third strike is NOT caught when eligible to attempt to go to first. 6.09(b ) 8-2-c . Implication is that if the third strike IS caught he does not become a runner.

[SAump]

P.S. SAump is a master of the non sequitur, so I wouldn't give it much thought.[/QUOTE]

See FED 7-3-5. The OP weaves it way through it. Good luck.

Can't wait to see K-2-4T-2T triple play overruled on BI in an NCAA game. If you hear of one, let me know.

[UmpTTS43]

It is interference by a batter or a runner when - 7.09e Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play on being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

It does say "Any batter who has just been put out." This rule encompasses a variety of INT senarios, some require intent others do not.

I don't know how else to demonstrate or explain that this is the rule to correctly apply the appropriate penalty to our original OP. I do know this is how I enforce it in my games that use the appropriate rule set.