What's this?
 

Batter swings and misses, pitch hits either the catcher or the ground and bounces up. Batter hits the ball on her back-swing. Ball rebounds off the catcher and into the infield. Both teams play this as a hit ball.

What is it really?

I'd call it a dead ball. Once the batter swung and missed, it's a strike. When It was hit on the backswing, it's a dead ball.

Time to clean the plate while all those idiots run around the field on a foul/dead ball. ;)

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.

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

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.

Actually, I wrote "back-swing"... but your spelling is correct. :rolleyes: But, that is what I meant... or more generally, natural movement of the bat after the swing attempt.

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.

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.

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

That is why the call him the back stop!

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.

Yes, it would. However, that is for calling a strike. What happens when you rule the batter out on strikes the the coach protests citing 7.6.K.3 and Effect where it specifically states that this is a foul ball. And we all know, a foul ball is not a strike when the batter already has two.

It seems there is a contradiction.

It took us awhile (must be the off season for a lot of folks)... but we've finally gotten to the dilema on this situation.

Less that 2 strikes, there is no contradiction. But with 2 strikes, there is.

Personally, I'm going with foul ball and letting the protest committee sort it out.

The original post had a swing an a miss, so i have strike. If it happens to be strike 3, then batter out. 3rd strike occurs before the hit ball, so i've got strike 3, dead ball.

An interesting dilema. And here is an odd twist...

I don't have a 2006 book handy, but I do have the 2005 book on CD with me now.

For the 2006 rule, is the above quote from "blue" accurate? Does the "NOTE" associated with 7-4-E really say that a ball hit on the backswing is ruled as "...a strike and a DEAD BALL"?

My 2005 book reads that it is "...a strike and a FOUL BALL".

A subtle editorial change? A misquote from "blue"?

If this is an editorial change, it is one that would have a profound effect on how this rule is enforced. It almost looks like someone caught this inconsistency, slipped the editorial change in the new book, but forgot to make a corresponding change to the conflicting rule (7-6-K-3).

In other words, it looks like somebody already tinkered with this, but they just didn't tinker enough!

Yes, the 2006 ASA 7-4 NOTE-E-F says "strike and dead ball.

So, between the 2005 and 2006 book somebody DID make a concious effort to clarify this rule.

Trouble is, they missed one more conflicting rule that would also need modified to totally set thing straight! :confused:

Poe 24
 

Let POE 24 be the tiebreaker... dead ball / foul ball.

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.