Follow Through Interference

[jms1425]

R3, less than two outs.

Ground ball to F4, but the batter's follow through hits the catcher. We have a 4-3 put out at first and run comes in to score.

A) call batter out for interference, return R3

B) this is nothing - play stands

C) call interference, return batter to plate and return R3

D) let the defense choose from B or C above?

E) something else?

 

[White47]

B- no one was hindered. follow threw Interference only applies when it hinders the actions at home plate

[kstrunk]

Nothing

[jms1425]

I agree, though I thought of one complicating factor.....

Suppose the defense was playing in, and the contact from the bat injures the catcher. F4 fields the ball, wants to throw home to get R3 coming to score, but F2 is down because of getting hit with the bat, so F4 instead turns and throw to F3 to retire the BR.

Does that change anything?

[White47]

13 minutes ago, jms1425 said:

I agree, though I thought of one complicating factor.....

Suppose the defense was playing in, and the contact from the bat injures the catcher. F4 fields the ball, wants to throw home to get R3 coming to score, but F2 is down because of getting hit with the bat, so F4 instead turns and throw to F3 to retire the BR.

Does that change anything?

I would say no, especially when looking at the NCAA rule. You may have an argument with the FED rule. BDR says that in FED follow through interference is anything that hinders the actions at home plate. but since this in the collegiate sections I assume you talking about NCAA and it does not have such wording. 

[noumpere]

41 minutes ago, jms1425 said:

I agree, though I thought of one complicating factor.....

Suppose the defense was playing in, and the contact from the bat injures the catcher. F4 fields the ball, wants to throw home to get R3 coming to score, but F2 is down because of getting hit with the bat, so F4 instead turns and throw to F3 to retire the BR.

Does that change anything?

I'm pretty sure that the rule *as currently written* has to do with affecting F2's ability to catch the pitch /make a play after catching the pitch, etc.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with subsequent fielding of a throw.  Some, i'm sure, would support such a change.

[maven]

23 minutes ago, jms1425 said:

Suppose the defense was playing in, and the contact from the bat injures the catcher. F4 fields the ball, wants to throw home to get R3 coming to score, but F2 is down because of getting hit with the bat, so F4 instead turns and throw to F3 to retire the BR.

Again, we have confusion: this is NOT follow-through INT (or any other form of batter INT) because this is not caused by a batter. Once he puts the ball in play, he is a batter-runner.

At that point, we have to look at a different rule, namely a runner INT rule. For NCAA, you could go with 8-5-o, which would make this a form of runner INT. (That rule references 7-11-n, which applies only when the bat is thrown into fair territory and hinders a fielder; I'm not sure what the interpretation is for bats hitting F2 in foul ground.)

I don't work NCAA, but I'd have to be pretty sure this wasn't contact that F2 could normally play through.

[jms1425]

So my conclusion for the OP is that it's nothing.

In my "what if" addition, I can't find anything that supports calling interference on the BR. Interference is hindering a fielder in the act of making a play and F2 is not "in the act of making a play" at the moment contact occurs. I guess it's just "play on." Sucks for F2, I guess, but there does not seem to be anything in the book to justify making a call.

[humanbackstop19]

May be stretching, but how about 8-5 (l) under When runners are out?: 

"The individual attempts to score when the batter interferes with the play at home plate provided two are not already out."  

I know this is a reference to R3 stealing home, but, if the follow thru hindered to the extent that perhaps his glove went flying or cracks the C in the back of the head, I believe this applies in the modified case that the infield was drawn in and the ball hit traveled directly to F4 with the intent to come to the plate with the baseball.  

If you do pull the trigger on INT, I think you bang the batter-runner out and put R3 back on third.  Call R3 out and prepare for armageddon from the OHC.  

[maven]

7 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

May be stretching, but how about 8-5 (l) under When runners are out?: 

"The individual attempts to score when the batter interferes with the play at home plate provided two are not already out."  

I know this is a reference to R3 stealing home, but, if the follow thru hindered to the extent that perhaps his glove went flying or cracks the C in the back of the head, I believe this applies in the modified case that the infield was drawn in and the ball hit traveled directly to F4 with the intent to come to the plate with the baseball.  

If you do pull the trigger on INT, I think you bang the batter-runner out and put R3 back on third.  Call R3 out and prepare for armageddon from the OHC.  

He's not a batter, so not subject to batter INT.

I'm not (just here) defending either ignoring it or getting an out; but if you insist on getting an out, that can't be the reason.

[Senor Azul]

I cannot give you anything definitive on the NCAA but I can give you some food for thought for OBR and FED.

From the 2010 Jaksa/Roder rules interpretation manual:

"If the backswing hits the catcher after a ball has been batted and the catcher is prevented from making a play, it is treated as regular interference; the batter-runner is out and other runners return to their TOP bases…"

Example play 9 (p. 97):  The batter hits a pitch off the end of his bat into fair territory near home plate. His backswing hits the catcher in the head, preventing the catcher from making a play on the ball. The pitcher is unable to get to the ball in time and the batter-runner is safe at first:  the batter is out for interference.

Example play 10:  The batter swings and pops the ball up behind home plate. His backswing hits the catcher, preventing his chance to catch the fly ball, and no other fielders can make the play: the batter is out for interference.

[Senor Azul]

Gosh, I’m not sure if the following FED case book play is apposite or not, but I think it just might be analogous to your scenario because it also has a batter who becomes a batter-runner and whose follow-through contacts the catcher and prevents a possible play.

7.3.5 Situation C:  B3 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B3 runs to first base and is safe. Ruling:  B3 is ruled out.

[ElkOil]

18 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Gosh, I’m not sure if the following FED case book play is apposite or not, but I think it just might be analogous to your scenario because it also has a batter who becomes a batter-runner and whose follow-through contacts the catcher and prevents a possible play.

7.3.5 Situation C:  B3 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B3 runs to first base and is safe. Ruling:  B3 is ruled out.

I grok.

[beerguy55]

Sounds like it depends on what R3 does, and the seriousness of the contact.   If contact doesn't hinder F2's ability to get into position to receive a throw, it's nothing.  If R3 just stays on third, there's no play at home, so F2 can't be hindered, so no INT, even if he's lying unconscious.  If R3 goes on contact and there could have been a play at home if F2 wasn't unconscious, B/R is out and R3 returns.

But are you to judge if there SHOULD be a play at the plate?  If there are two outs, R3 is going on contact, and F4 should simply be taking the routine grounder and throwing to first.   You wouldn't rule interference because F4 might throw home, would you?  Would you have to see F4  throw to home (or just show he was going to throw and then change his mind)?

Where this matters is if F4 throws to first, and F3 bobbles the ball making B/R safe, at which point F3 throws home to F2 who is curled up in the fetal position holding his head.

I take it you're not necessarily ruling "nothing" nor "interference" at contact - you need to see the play develop.