Live or Dead Ball???

[Guest Get the crew together]

All rule sets...

-R2 1-1 count. pitch in dirt, batter swings and misses, catcher drops down and blocks it and ball pops up in air. The batters backswing makes contact with the ball that was just blocked by the catcher. Ball gets away from catcher and R2 advances to 3rd base. What is the ruling?

[stkjock]

Like this?

 

 

[Stk004]

Funny, this exact comment was a hot topic on this forum a few days ago. 

Ball is dead, R2 returns, 1-2 count. 

Here's the relevant portion of Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) Comment:

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.

[Richvee]

Dead ball, runner returns. All codes.

I'm doubting myself on the FED rule. If a runner was stealing on the pitch, in FED, we have follow-through INT and the batter is out. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The case play where this occurs  on strike 3 doesn't really help.

7.3.5 SITUATION F:

With R3 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R3 scores.

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

[Stk004]

@Richvee I think that situation is different because it's a D3K scenario. Also your post posted twice. 

[Richvee]

14 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

@Richvee I think that situation is different because it's a D3K scenario. Also your post posted twice. 

That's what I'm saying.That's the only case play that talks about hitting a ball on the follow-through that was blocked first by F2. It doesn't really give us any guidance on what to do if it's not strike 3.

Assume it's strike one and this happens. Is the batter still out even if the runner didn't take off until the ball was knocked away by the follow-through? Or is the batter only out for follow-through INT if the runner was stealing on the pitch? I'm not sure..

Double post deleted.

 

[Stk004]

FED 7-3-5-c 

A batter shall not [make] any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner.

Relevant portion of corresponding PENALTY: When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base [not home plate] is unsuccessful, the -batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch.

Unless someone knows of an exception to this elsewhere in the rule book, it sounds like the batter is out in FED. 

[Richvee]

18 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

FED 7-3-5-c 

A batter shall not [make] any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner.

Relevant portion of corresponding PENALTY: When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base [not home plate] is unsuccessful, the -batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch.

Unless someone knows of an exception to this elsewhere in the rule book, it sounds like the batter is out in FED. 

Here's my issue. I have no problem calling the batter out for follow-through INT if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through and the runner(s) were stealing.

Where I have a problem is the interpretation by some that, if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through, and the runner(s), after seeing the ball get away,  start running, we should call the batter out for follow-through INT and return the runner(s)......However, if the runners are asleep, and don't try to advance the batter hasn't hindered any play on a runner so no INT. Seems like this unfairly penalizes an offense for being aggressive seeing a ball get by the catcher.  It's ridiculous to expect runners to think, "Hey,our batter hit that on the follow-through, I better not try to advance or they'll call him out"

I don't see a clear and concise official interp on this in FED, so I'd be inclined to kill this and send the runners back, unless they were stealing on the pitch.

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Here's my issue. I have no problem calling the batter out for follow-through INT if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through and the runner(s) were stealing.

Where I have a problem is the interpretation by some that, if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through, and the runner(s), after seeing the ball get away,  start running, we should call the batter out for follow-through INT and return the runner(s)......However, if the runners are asleep, and don't try to advance the batter hasn't hindered any play on a runner so no INT. Seems like this unfairly penalizes an offense for being aggressive seeing a ball get by the catcher.  It's ridiculous to expect runners to think, "Hey,our batter hit that on the follow-through, I better not try to advance or they'll call him out"

I don't see a clear and concise official interp on this in FED, so I'd be inclined to kill this and send the runners back, unless they were stealing on the pitch.

I guess the school of thought would be that the offense messed up, and they only compounded the mistake by trying to take advantage of the batter's (potentially) illegal action. The problem I have with treating the delayed steal the same way as OBR is that you can't support it by rule in FED. OBR explicitly tells you to return runners, FED simply provides a blanket statement to call the batter out. 

[Richvee]

18 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

I guess the school of thought would be that the offense messed up, and they only compounded the mistake by trying to take advantage of the batter's (potentially) illegal action. The problem I have with treating the delayed steal the same way as OBR is that you can't support it by rule in FED. OBR explicitly tells you to return runners, FED simply provides a blanket statement to call the batter out. 

Fair point. I'd love to see 7.3.5 sit F be strike one or two.

[maven]

49 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Fair point. I'd love to see 7.3.5 sit F be strike one or two.

The count is moot. Note that the case play rules that the batter is out for INT, not for strike 3.

FED "follow through" INT is a kind of batter INT. Same penalty applies.

[Richvee]

46 minutes ago, maven said:

The count is moot. Note that the case play rules that the batter is out for INT, not for strike 3.

FED "follow through" INT is a kind of batter INT. Same penalty applies.

Or is he out for interfering with F2'soppertunity to catch the third strike? Note the very first statement.."The ball is dead immediately. That tells me, that any runner who tries to advance after the follow-through contact would be sent back....they tried to advance while the ball was dead.

[ricka56]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

Where I have a problem is the interpretation by some that, if the batter hits the ball on the follow-through, and the runner(s), after seeing the ball get away,  start running, we should call the batter out for follow-through INT and return the runner(s)......However, if the runners are asleep, and don't try to advance the batter hasn't hindered any play on a runner so no INT. Seems like this unfairly penalizes an offense for being aggressive seeing a ball get by the catcher.  It's ridiculous to expect runners to think, "Hey,our batter hit that on the follow-through, I better not try to advance or they'll call him out"

I don't see a clear and concise official interp on this in FED, so I'd be inclined to kill this and send the runners back, unless they were stealing on the pitch.

Call TIME quickly and prevent the WTF crowd from gathering any momentum. The longer you take to kill this, the harder its gonna be to sell whatever you are selling...
... easier said than done though, when you're included in the WTF just happened crowd. 

[maven]

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

Note the very first statement.."The ball is dead immediately. That tells me, that any runner who tries to advance after the follow-through contact would be sent back....they tried to advance while the ball was dead.

Your inference is correct, and crucial to understanding the ruling. R3 advancing on the pitch in this play would be out for the batter's INT (that's the penalty for garden-variety batter INT with a play at HP with less than 2 out).

He's not out in this play because he was not advancing. He's just put back on 3B (prevented from advancing because the INT made the ball dead).

[lawump]

40 minutes ago, maven said:

He's not out in this play because he was not advancing. He's just put back on 3B (prevented from advancing because the INT made the ball dead).

In FED, if the batter swings and misses for strike three (or is called out on strike three) and then commits batter's interference, the advancing runner is not automatically out.  From 7-3-5:  "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."  (emphasis added.)  In other words, in a particular play a runner may just be sent back anyways.

[maven]

2 hours ago, lawump said:

In FED, if the batter swings and misses for strike three (or is called out on strike three) and then commits batter's interference, the advancing runner is not automatically out.  From 7-3-5:  "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out."  (emphasis added.)  In other words, in a particular play a runner may just be sent back anyways.

IMHO [which I've expressed in the forum before] is that this possibility is merely notional, and should never actually happen on a field. That is because 1 of the following 2 things happened:

1. The batter's action hindered the defense.
2. The batter's action did not hinder the defense.

In (1), we have batter INT: the ball is dead, someone is out for the INT, and (other) runners return.

In (2), we have no INT: in that case, we have no rationale for returning runners.

In no case will we actually have action that is not INT but still have a rational basis for returning runners. Either there was hindrance or not. Penalize or not, accordingly.

[Senor Azul]

The OP asked for the ruling in all codes and so far just Fed and OBR have been discussed. NCAA is essentially the same as OBR on follow-through interference. The relevant rule is 6-2d--

NCAA rule 6-2 Immediate Dead Ball—Runners Return

SECTION 2. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when:

d. If a batter swings and misses a pitch and the backswing is so forceful that it hits the catcher as the pitch is caught, or if the batter hits the ball again, the pitch shall be called a strike, the ball is dead (no interference) and no runner shall advance on the play;

1) If the follow-through hits the catcher and occurs in a situation where the batter normally would become a runner because of a third strike not held by the catcher, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out. No runner shall advance.

2) If the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner and the batter is in the batter’s box and his normal follow-through unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, “Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner).

[Aging_Arbiter]

Kudos to Mr. Blue  @Senor Azul for rounding out the answers in the "code" pool with the NCAA reference.

 

I saved 15% on my insurance by switching to Geico reverse and leaving the scene

 

 

Sorry, the smart@$$ in me took over for a moment.