Once in a lifetime situation
 

In a game tonight I had a situation that I doubt I will ever seen again, no matter how many years I umpire, but I thought some of you might enjoy this story - also a good rules knowledge test.

I'm behind the plate, no outs, bases empty. Count is 1-2 on the batter. A pitch comes in, the batter takes a mighty swing and misses. The ball hits the catcher's glove, but she fails to catch it cleanly, and it pops up into the air. In the meantime, the momentum from the batter's swing has twisted her around, and the bat, held in her left hand (right handed batter) swings around and contacts the ball (the batter's back is to the plate, momentum has completely turned her around.) The ball then goes into fair territory.

So, for all you rules gurus, what do you call? And has anyone else ever seen anything like this?

In ASA SP, just strike three, batter's out.

I only call SP, but I'll take a stab at FP and Modified, so tell me if I'm wrong. Since it was a dropped third strike, the contact after the drop might be interference on the batter. I'll leave that to the FP and Modified gurus and fully accept if I'm wrong. :)

I have seen inexperienced players swing and catch the ball on the backswing before, but only once or twice.

In FP, Foul ball. 7-6-k-exception-3.

Hang around and do enough games, you will see this again...but it's always a surprise the first time it happens. :D

John, I think you mis-read the ruling. ASA 7-6-k-exception-3 states:
The batter is out:
When the batter hits a fair ball with the bat a second time in fair territory:
Exception 3. If contact was made on the follow through, after missing the pitch on the initial swing. Effect: It is a dead ball, strike.

So in the OP, we would have a dead ball, strike, for the third strike and an out.

Dead ball strike in all codes.

Just a note --- why do you reference the dropped third strike rule at all here - the ball was never dropped (or uncaught).

That's what I read and pictured. Remember: I'm a SP ump, and I was just taking a stab at it. Don't kill me. ;)

Mike,
I'm sure you're are correct, but I couldn't find the reference in NFHS. Where did you see it?

I don't have the books here at work... but I would look in the "It is a strike when..." section.

It also agrees with common sense. This case cannot be ruled a D3K because the ball was neither caught nor dropped. And the ball has to be dead, so no D3K either.

I suppose some people may argue for a foul ball, but I'd go with the strike out.

Agreed.

But here is my concern. NFHS 7.2.1.b - A strike is charged to the batter when: a pitched ball is struck at and missed.

Seems clear, in the OP the first swing should be ruled a strike. Now what about the 'follow through' contact of the ball?

I am either overlooking why contacting the ball should be dead on the follow through swing in section 1 of Rule 5 - Dead Ball and Suspension of Play, or it isn't there. So I go to the rules governing interference, and this is the closest I can find. 7.4.4: Batter is out: The batter interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batter's box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the catchers attempt to play on a runner ...

Granted, technically, the player is not a runner, but a batter-runner, but there doesn't seem to be anything I can find that would cause the contacting of the ball on the follow through to be dead.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be, I'm thinking either I'm not looking hard enough or there is something missing in the book.

Just looking for some help.

No, the player is still a batter.

True enough. I sit corrected. :o

I guess the importance of my concern centers around the situation where this may happen with runners on base. It was strike three. If the batter then strikes the ball while runners are advancing, I think we have interfenece. In ASA, we have a rule that tells us the ball is dead; but in NFHS, IF the ball isn't dead on the follow through contact, AND we rule interference, how many outs do we have? The batter should be out because of strike three, but can we also rule interference on a retired runner (although she was never a runner) (8-18), thus calling out the runner closest to home as well?

Here's my read on the situation....

The strike three pitch is neither caught nor dropped at the time it was struck by the bat on the follow through. The catcher is still in the act of receiving the pitch since it popped straight up in the air and she still has a chance to catch the ball to complete the out on the strikeout. The bat hitting the ball interferred with that opportunity. I believe the rule cited above is correct for this play.

What do you do in HS if a runner is going and the batter swings at a ball that hits her? I see this as a similar circumstance. In both cases, the catcher has a possible play if she gets the ball. In both cases, the batter does something which keeps the ball from reaching the catcher. In both cases, the ball is dead.

I believe the prudent call would be to just return the runner(s).

Mike,

I agree, and believe that it would be a very easy sell on the field. It would be nice to close that gap in the rules, if it truly exists. I've been digging on and off all day and can't find anything to support that ruling - although I believe it is correct.

Thanks for your insight.