What's this?

[MNBlue]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[RonRef]

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!

[blue]

Wouldn't ASA rule 7 section 4E apply here?
4E says, "a strike is called for each foul ball when the batter has fewer than 2 strikes" which is followed by F (slowpitch) then a note. The Note states : NOTE E-F: if a pitched ball is swung at and missed, then hit on the follow through, it is a strike and a dead ball. The way i read that, if it's a 3rd strike, its still strike 3 dead ball. Batter out.

[Dakota]

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.