Strange Happenings

[bob jenkins]

I think this FED rule is better than the OBR equivalent.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Welpe

He means 7-3-5c.

You are correct. Thanks... and I edited the damn thing 3 times...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Why would I bother to research and post the rule numbers, if they were not valid? As Bob wrote 7.3.5. Situation F is the case ruling for NFHS. NFHS does not have back swing interference in the same way as OBR and NCAA.

Awfully touchy considering you did, in fact, type the wrong rule number. The one you typed is not valid - it doesn't exist. Correcting it here doesn't make your previous mistype valid.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Awfully touchy considering you did, in fact, type the wrong rule number. The one you typed is not valid - it doesn't exist. Correcting it here doesn't make your previous mistype valid.

Fair enough. I am sorry for being petulant.

[3rdGennation]

Thanks to the OP for bringing this situation to the board and giving us a chance to rule on it in real time. I also appreciate the other board members researching and bringing forward the specifics from the various rule sets.

I got this wrong with my original instincts. Part of the reason I got it wrong was because I’ve never seen this at any level and I’m having a hard time envisioning how it could happen and the timing of it. Another reason I got it wrong was some old thinking on what constitutes a batters’ swing. I.e. if a catcher could be charged with interference, (agree that it should be changed to Obstruction), for interfering with a batters follow through, is the follow through part of his swing? Ultimately I got this ruling wrong because I don’t know the rules well enough. Thank you all again for helping me to correct that.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by 3rdGennation

Another reason I got it wrong was some old thinking on what constitutes a batters’ swing. I.e. if a catcher could be charged with interference, (agree that it should be changed to Obstruction), for interfering with a batters follow through, is the follow through part of his swing?

Generally, a catcher can't be held for interference on a follow-through. The batter can, though.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Agreed.

At least in this case the result would be the same since it was strike 3.

Which makes me wonder the validity of this case play in relation to rule 7-3-5C.

In the play, the batter is out when he swung and missed the pitch. Since the pitch was uncaught, he now becomes a batter-runner. So this is really a case where a BR, not a batter, interferes with the catcher ability to field the pitch. It should be listed as a case play under 8-4-1.

FWIW, I also agree with you that the FED rule on interference on the follow-thru is a bit harsh. I've seen catchers get pretty danged close to home plate, and it's a wonder how they don't obstruct the batter on every swing. Why hold the batter responsible to the point of it being an out, particularly when there wasn't a play in process that the batter hindered?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by 3rdGennation

Thanks to the OP for bringing this situation to the board and giving us a chance to rule on it in real time. I also appreciate the other board members researching and bringing forward the specifics from the various rule sets.

I got this wrong with my original instincts. Part of the reason I got it wrong was because I’ve never seen this at any level and I’m having a hard time envisioning how it could happen and the timing of it. Another reason I got it wrong was some old thinking on what constitutes a batters’ swing. I.e. if a catcher could be charged with interference, (agree that it should be changed to Obstruction), for interfering with a batters follow through, is the follow through part of his swing? Ultimately I got this ruling wrong because I don’t know the rules well enough. Thank you all again for helping me to correct that.

Exactly my point, I have been officiating close to 30 yrs and that was the first time I ever had that happen in my game. I killed the play but, honestly almost called "Foul Ball" myself. "Dead ball, batter is out", OC asked if it was a foul ball and i told him it couldn't be because he clearly never touched it on his original swing but hit on his follow thru, which caused the ball to be knocked away from the catchers oppurtunity to make the play. OC bought it but, I really wasn't sold on what I just told him. As it is so many times, you learn better by your mistakes and sometimes even if you think your wrong and can sell it, that works too.

I too, learned something new.