Strange Happenings

[3rdGennation]

Since the ball didn't hit anything before the batter made contact with it I'll say Foul.

[tcarilli]

NFHS the batter is out 7-5-c, the ball is dead no runners may advance.

NCAA the the ball is dead immediately no runners may advance 6-2-d.

OBR the the ball is dead immediately no runners may advance 6.06(c) comment.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

NFHS the batter is out 7-5-c, the ball is dead no runners may advance.

NCAA the the ball is dead immediately no runners may advance 6-2-d.

OBR the the ball is dead immediately no runners may advance 6.06(c) comment.

Not sure if your NFHS reference is valid however, I also had the out and killed the play but treated it as interference by the batter. Still not sure if that is totally correct, but still checking.

I haven't researched the other codes yet, will do after my game tonight.

"3rdGennation" It can't be a foul ball because it doesn't meet the criteria of a foul ball. The batter missed the ball on his attemped to hit it, immediatly afterwhich he becomes a batter-runner. That was my initial thought however, I just killed the play and didn't utter those words.

[bob jenkins]

See 7.3.5F. It doesn't matter whether the ball hit the catcher's glove first or not.

[jicecone]

Thanks Bob. First time I ever saw it happen at a game I was doing.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Not sure if your NFHS reference is valid however, I also had the out and killed the play but treated it as interference by the batter. Still not sure if that is totally correct, but still checking.

I haven't researched the other codes yet, will do after my game tonight.

"3rdGennation" It can't be a foul ball because it doesn't meet the criteria of a foul ball. The batter missed the ball on his attemped to hit it, immediatly afterwhich he becomes a batter-runner. That was my initial thought however, I just killed the play and didn't utter those words.

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.

[cookie]

In Fed the batter is responsible for his follow-thru. If it interferes with a catcher's ability in this case to field the ball (or make a throw to a base in the case of a steal), then the batter is out.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by cookie

In Fed the batter is responsible for his follow-thru. If it interferes with a catcher's ability in this case to field the ball (or make a throw to a base in the case of a steal), then the batter is out.

Another rule that FED needs to change. Sometimes the situation calls for an automatic do-over (except for the pitch). An out is too harsh.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Another rule that FED needs to change. Sometimes the situation calls for an automatic do-over (except for the pitch). An out is too harsh.

Agreed.

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

[jicecone]

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.

That is totally up to you but, the 2013 NFHS Rule Book and Case Book I have in my possession does not contain "7-5-c". If yours does then your right, it is valid.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jicecone

That is totally up to you but, the 2013 NFHS Rule Book and Case Book I have in my possession does not contain "7-5-c". If yours does then your right, it is valid.

He means 7-3-5c.

[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.