Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

[maven]

1 minute ago, ricka56 said:

I would like to hear maven's answer to grayhawk's insightful question. Is that CI ? 

Of course not. CI is defined in terms of hindrance, not contact, like most forms of INT. No hindrance = no INT.

My esteemed colleague (and I have the greatest respect for grayhawk) does not put his best dialectical foot forward in this thread.

[ricka56]

7 minutes ago, maven said:

Of course not. CI is defined in terms of hindrance, not contact, like most forms of INT. No hindrance = no INT.

How can a catcher's mitt getting between a pitch and a swing ever not be hinderance/interference...that should be a rhetorical question. 
 

7 minutes ago, maven said:

My esteemed colleague (and I have the greatest respect for grayhawk) does not put his best dialectical foot forward in this thread.

I would say the same about you and your dialectical foot on this one. 

[grayhawk]

11 minutes ago, maven said:

Of course not. CI is defined in terms of hindrance, not contact, like most forms of INT. No hindrance = no INT.

My esteemed colleague (and I have the greatest respect for grayhawk) does not put his best dialectical foot forward in this thread.

The bat was clearly going to hit the ball on the follow through, but the catcher's mitt hindered it from doing so.  I think my dialectical foot is just fine in this thread.  The fact of the matter is that there are holes in both interpretations.  

[basejester]

21 hours ago, grayhawk said:

So then you must call CI when the bat hits the catcher's mitt on the follow through if the pitch hasn't yet been gloved by the catcher.

I agree that this isn't really worth the time we are taking to discuss it. We're talking about a situation that isn't addressed directly because nobody ever thought to write a rule for it. 

Hmmm.

5.05 (6.09) When the Batter Becomes a Runner 
. . .
(b) (6.08) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when: 
. . .
(3) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. 

Definition of Terms
"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

hind·er1ˈhindər/
verb
create difficulties for (someone or something), resulting in delay or obstruction.

I think catcher's only interfere with a batter who has intent to hit.  So I would have backswing interference, dead ball, no further penalty.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by basejester

[grayhawk]

12 minutes ago, basejester said:

Hmmm.

5.05 (6.09) When the Batter Becomes a Runner 
. . .
(b) (6.08) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when: 
. . .
(3) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. 

Definition of Terms
"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

hind·er1ˈhindər/
verb
create difficulties for (someone or something), resulting in delay or obstruction.

I think catcher's only interfere with a batter who has intent to hit.  So I would have backswing interference, dead ball, no further penalty.

 

You are being inconsistent.  You can't have it both ways.  CI is defined in OBR as:

"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

Nothing about intent there.

[ricka56]

20 minutes ago, basejester said:

I think catcher's only interfere with a batter who has intent to hit.  So I would have backswing interference, dead ball, no further penalty.

On every half swing, the batter had intent (to swing) then didn't. How well the batter controls his bat has everything to do with whether or not the umpire rules a swing or not ... not his intent to stop the swing.

[basejester]

6 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

You are being inconsistent.  You can't have it both ways.  CI is defined in OBR as:

"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

Nothing about intent there.

I think that hinder (as opposed to aid) has to assume an intent.  Somebody stopped a person from doing a thing he intended to do. Maybe not so much with "prevent".

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, basejester said:

I think that hinder (as opposed to aid) has to assume an intent.  Somebody stopped a person from doing a thing he intended to do. Maybe not so much with "prevent".

If a catcher steps in front of the plate to receive a pitch with R3 stealing, it's CI even if the batter never takes the bat off his shoulder.  I recognize that this is a specific situation, but the rules makers decided to call it CI anyway.

[basejester]

Here's another case to contemplate.

Pitch comes inside.  Batter pulls away, but the ball is on a trajectory to strike his bat.  The catcher reaches up and catches the ball.

Is that CI?

 

[basejester]

5 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

On every half swing, the batter had intent (to swing) then didn't. How well the batter controls his bat has everything to do with whether or not the umpire rules a swing or not ... not his intent to stop the swing.

That's true, but the way the rule works, we have to roll that all up into one intent -- to strike at or not.

[basejester]

3 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

So if F2 stops B from striking out (assisting) with his mitt, then that'd be OK ? 

:-)

No, because the intent was to strike at the pitch, and the batter was hindered from doing that.  It takes a lot of speculation to determine what was really in the batter's best interest ("Well, he's been having a lot trouble with the curve ball, but the wind is blowing out . . ."), and I don't think we're asked to do that.  

[ricka56]

28 minutes ago, basejester said:

:-)

No, because the intent was to strike at the pitch, and the batter was hindered from doing that.  It takes a lot of speculation to determine what was really in the batter's best interest ("Well, he's been having a lot trouble with the curve ball, but the wind is blowing out . . ."), and I don't think we're asked to do that.  

Sorry that was a factious attempt (that I deleted, but you were too fast for me) at debunking the ridiculous assertion that F2 could somehow legally aid a batter from swinging.

37 minutes ago, basejester said:

Here's another case to contemplate.

Pitch comes inside.  Batter pulls away, but the ball is on a trajectory to strike his bat.  The catcher reaches up and catches the ball.

Is that CI?

That's some hypothetical. Vary your scenario. F2 didn't catch the pitch, the pitch did hit the bat and ball rolled fair and the defense couldn't make a play on it. Wouldn't F2 catching the pitch instead be interference ? 

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, maven said:

Of course not. CI is defined in terms of hindrance, not contact, like most forms of INT. No hindrance = no INT.

My esteemed colleague (and I have the greatest respect for grayhawk) does not put his best dialectical foot forward in this thread.

Of course it would be hindrance.  I have yet to see a scenario in my life where a bat hitting a catcher's mitt on a pitch was not ruled CI (even on a check swing), because the bat hitting the mitt is ALWAYS hindering the ability to hit the ball (even when the batter knocks it out of the park it's still CI, though ignored). 

This would also be true on a backswing/followthrough where the bat hits the mitt when the pitch is still considered a pitch.  If it's still a pitch, it can still be batted...if it can still be batted, anything that prevents/hinders that must be interference.

The bat coming around on the follow through and hitting the ball would be a batted ball, foul or fair.  The bat coming around and hitting the mitt, deflected and missing the pitch as a result would be CI.  The bat hitting the mitt should be judged hindrance, no matter the result.  Provided it is still a pitch.

 

 

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Gee - I think the rule is pretty clear - the follow-through/backswing hit the ball.    What am I missing?

In the OP it's still a pitch - it hasn't passed the batter/reached the catcher yet.  Bat hitting a "pitch" is a batted ball.  You can take ten swings forward and backward if you want...if one of them hits the pitch it's in play.

The rule refers to a ball that is no longer a pitch - it has probably gone off the catcher/umpire.  The rule specifically mentions "in back of the batter"  - 99.9% of batted balls are hit in front of the batter....the rule is talking about a ball that has already gone past the batter and is no longer a "pitch".

[KenBAZ]

What if in the OP the batter put the ball in play? Would anyone have BI? I'd play on.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The rule specifically mentions "in back of the batter"  - 99.9% of batted balls are hit in front of the batter....the rule is talking about a ball that has already gone past the batter and is no longer a "pitch".

Here's the rule again. Read slowly if need be. This isn't that hard.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The backswing (follow-through) hitting the ball always happens "in back of the batter". It can't happen any other way. And calling CI on a backswing would get you a one-way ticket to Turdville. 
 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

Here's the rule again. Read slowly if need be. This isn't that hard.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The backswing (follow-through) hitting the ball always happens "in back of the batter". It can't happen any other way. And calling CI on a backswing would get you a one-way ticket to Turdville. 
 

Wow, do you save the sarcasm only for me, or are you applying  this snark to ALL the people on this thread who believe that the OP is a foul ball (not a strike)?

Any pitch that hits the batter's bat is a batted ball.  The pitch doesn't stop being a pitch when the batter swings....the pitch stops being a pitch when it hits the bat, the batter, R3 stealing home, or the catcher (and I assume at some point after it passes the catcher if untouched).  If it's still a pitch when it hits the bat, it's a batted ball.   Unless there's some rule/case play/interpretation/comment/precedent/Supreme Court ruling that has a different definition for when a pitch ends I see no other way to interpret this.

And a follow through/backswing can absolutely end in front of/at the batter - not past him (if the batter is bad enough to swing that early, they are bad enough to have form that will cause them to do a 180 or more on their follow through, bringing that bat into the strike zone a second time)...and certainly in front of the plate...and certainly well in front of the catcher.

 

As to the CI - separate conversation with a different set of discussion points...and don't really care if I go to Turdville or not.  If it's still a pitch then the batter can still hit it.  If the catcher hinders that, it's CI. (at the same time, if Blue ruled against this in a game my argument would be half-hearted, if not non-existent)

Edited October 17, 2017 by beerguy55
clarity and grammar

[scrounge]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOt2iw-7n6A

[maven]

 

[basejester]

 

[ricka56]

On 10/17/2017 at 4:44 PM, beerguy55 said:

Wow, do you save the sarcasm only for me, or are you applying  this snark to ALL the people on this thread who believe that the OP is a foul ball (not a strike)?

Sorry for the snark...it was uncalled for. 

As a rule, I don't use rules unless I need to ... let the players play. But if I found myself in the OP TW, I'd use the above rule and skip taking the off-ramp to SH!+sburgh.

[lawump]

On 10/16/2017 at 12:09 PM, maven said:

This is what is happening to me as a result of two of the posters I most respect with regards to their rules knowledge arguing from opposite sides of the debate.  I never thought that I'd see them disagree so it is causing my head to explode.

(BTW, Maven, this a pretty disgusting GIF.  Just thought I'd point that out.)

I once had a game where a team hit two home runs off pitches that had bounced in front of the plate, but I've never had a batter put the ball in play by hitting the pitch on his follow through.  I'll be honest:  I don't know whose side I'm on.  I guess I'll never know unless it happens to me in a game forcing me to make a decision.

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, lawump said:

(BTW, Maven, this a pretty disgusting GIF.  Just thought I'd point that out.)

Isn't that from Scanners?

[lawump]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Isn't that from Scanners?

Based on the google search I just did...I would say that's a definitive "yes".  (I never heard of the movie until you just posted it.)

[ricka56]

Not nearly the OP, but today I had batter strike three, F2 mitts the pitch, batter's backswing knocks the ball out of his mitt into fair territory. It was an interesting few seconds as offensive and defense scrambled with no one knowing WTF had just happened...took me a second before flashing back to this thread and killing the mess that both teams were creating and one team was sure to bitch about.