What's this?

John Robertson · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 07:32am

I'm assuming when you wrote "backswing" you meant the action of a player who has already swung at a pitch and is now bringing the bat back.

If this is the case, I can't call it a foul ball. It's a swinging strike followed by a bit of unintentional interference by the batter. If it's strike three, the batter is out and the ball is dead. If runners are attempting to steal on the play, you might have a good case for calling interference too.

MNBlue · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 08:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Robertson

...unintentional interference ... you might have a good case for calling interference too.

John,

I thought that for interference to be called by retired runner, we need to have an intentional act.

ASA 8.7.P
NFHS 8.6.18

Also, Irish is correct about the ruling being a foul ball / dead ball.

ASA 7.6.K exception #3
NFHS 7.2.3

John Robertson · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 09:21am

A few random thoughts...

If this play is to be ruled a foul ball, then we obviously have no interference on a potential steal situation because runners can't attempt a steal on a foul ball.

One problem I see in ruling this a foul ball instead of a swing and a miss is that the batter may have saved himself/herself from a strikeout by hitting the ball (albeit inadvertently) on the backswing. The pitcher gets cheated out of a strikeout if there were already two strikes on the batter.

Maybe we have an illegally batted ball here? The batter has, in effect, swung twice at the pitch.

IRISHMAFIA · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 09:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Robertson

A few random thoughts...

If this play is to be ruled a foul ball, then we obviously have no interference on a potential steal situation because runners can't attempt a steal on a foul ball.

One problem I see in ruling this a foul ball instead of a swing and a miss is that the batter may have saved himself/herself from a strikeout by hitting the ball (albeit inadvertently) on the backswing. The pitcher gets cheated out of a strikeout if there were already two strikes on the batter.

Maybe we have an illegally batted ball here? The batter has, in effect, swung twice at the pitch.

I agree with John on the foul ball issue. If you rule it a foul ball, by the wording of the rule, this could be construed as negating a third strike on a missed swing.

I don't think that is what most of us would rule, but that's what it says.

Dakota · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 10:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree with John on the foul ball issue. If you rule it a foul ball, by the wording of the rule, this could be construed as negating a third strike on a missed swing.

I don't think that is what most of us would rule, but that's what it says.

If we want to talk about negating things, if the count was x-2 before the pitch, this was also an uncaught third strike (assuming it bounced up from the ground the first time). So, the batter was a BR already before contacting the ball with the bat.

CecilOne · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 06:24pm

Which would still make it a foul ball the second time it hit the catcher.

RonRef · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 12, 2006, 09:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which would still make it a foul ball the second time it hit the catcher.

That is why the call him the back stop!

Dakota · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 10:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Robertson

One problem I see in ruling this a foul ball instead of a swing and a miss is that the batter may have saved himself/herself from a strikeout by hitting the ball (albeit inadvertently) on the backswing. The pitcher gets cheated out of a strikeout if there were already two strikes on the batter.

Maybe we have an illegally batted ball here? The batter has, in effect, swung twice at the pitch.

OK, but the rule Mark referenced is a swing/miss and contact on the follow through. It doesn't say "unless strike 3."

Maybe it should, but note the rule does recognize the possiblity of there already being 2 strikes on the batter with the reference to 7-6-L.

Dakota · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 11, 2006, 10:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Robertson

I'm assuming when you wrote "backswing" you meant the action of a player who has already swung at a pitch and is now bringing the bat back.

If this is the case, I can't call it a foul ball. It's a swinging strike followed by a bit of unintentional interference by the batter. If it's strike three, the batter is out and the ball is dead. If runners are attempting to steal on the play, you might have a good case for calling interference too.

Actually, I wrote "back-swing"... but your spelling is correct.

But, that is what I meant... or more generally, natural movement of the bat after the swing attempt.

BCCanuck · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 14, 2006, 07:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Robertson

I'm assuming when you wrote "backswing" you meant the action of a player who has already swung at a pitch and is now bringing the bat back.

If this is the case, I can't call it a foul ball. It's a swinging strike followed by a bit of unintentional interference by the batter. If it's strike three, the batter is out and the ball is dead. If runners are attempting to steal on the play, you might have a good case for calling interference too.

Hi John. I found the same situation in the S.C. Casebook. Rule 7 case 66. Their interpretation is to treat this as an unintentional double hit while in the batter's box - i.e strike on the swing or hit, dead ball on the backswing contacting the ball. Like you I can't find anything specific in the rulebook.