Strange Happenings
 

I have been officiating long enough to understand that there is always something you haven't seen and always something else to learn. Having said that, on Tues I had a Varsity game where the following took place:

Top of 5 with 1 out , no runners, count 1-2.
Next pitch is a waste pitch in the dirt and the batter bites and swings and misses. The ball bounces up in the batter box and is struck by the batters bat on the follow thru. The ball then ends up at the backstop with the batter-runner now headed to first.

Is there a call here or not? I am going to keep checking my books and case plays. I am interested in what others say here, then I will state what I called.

Did the ball bounce off the catcher or his glove first?

There's a rule specifically for this - I don't have the books right here though, but if memory serves it's in or near the section dealing with a bat hitting a ball a second time (maybe not the best place for it, but I believe that's where it is). I believe all you have here is a dead ball strike - I know that's true in several codes.

No.

The ball was only hit once, on the follow-thru.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.