Batter Interference on Strike Three

[johnnyg08]

 

[noumpere]

If "we" start calling more of these, then the players will stop and we'll have to call fewer of these.

[johnnyg08]

100% agree

[MadMax]

There’s an argument that kid ball (< 14 year olds), the batters don’t know any better or that they don’t have control over their swings or body. I’ve even had a new batter hustle out, get in the box, do his pounding of the plate and be ready to bat... while a play was going on elsewhere (I remember being towards 3B)!

But high school ball? Those subtle, tactical actions are beginning to be taught.

College ball and higher? Those guys know exactly what they’re doing.

[umpstu]

Had the old strike em out throw em out inning ending double play this past week.  Love these.  Anything to get an out or outs.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, MadMax said:

But high school ball? Those subtle, tactical actions are beginning to be taught.

College ball and higher? Those guys know exactly what they’re doing.

Absolutely the case. Needs to be called every time. 

[maven]

7 hours ago, MadMax said:

There’s an argument that kid ball (< 14 year olds), the batters don’t know any better or that they don’t have control over their swings or body.

This can happen to anyone. Making the correct call is a great way of teaching such kids that they can be guilty of batter INT even without intending to hinder F2.

[Thatsnotyou]

7 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Absolutely the case. Needs to be called every time. 

“But all he did was swing, how is that interference?”

[ricka56]

11 hours ago, noumpere said:

If "we" start calling more of these, then the players will stop and we'll have to call fewer of these.

I have seen a marked improvement in calling BI. In my neck-of-the-woods higher level umpires don't miss this and I think it has trickled down considerably. But, agree that there is much room for improvement...
...I doubt players will ever learn.

[ilyazhito]

Absolutely interference by the batter in this case. I called a batter out for interference with the catcher on an attempted steal of 3rd in a travel ball game under high school rules, because the batter swung and stepped in front of the catcher, not affording him an opportunity to throw the runner out at 3rd. Runner returned to 2B. If that happened on a third strike, batter and runner are out. 

[roughie]

So the correct call was made in the Toronto - Baltimore game last night?  Smoak struck out and was called for BI and Granderson was returned to 1st although he was thrown out at third?

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, roughie said:

So the correct call was made in the Toronto - Baltimore game last night?  Smoak struck out and was called for BI and Granderson was returned to 1st although he was thrown out at third?

Sounds like backswing interference? Immediate dead ball.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, Jimurray said:

Sounds like backswing interference? Immediate dead ball.

I don't think backswing interference is immediate is it? 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, roughie said:

So the correct call was made in the Toronto - Baltimore game last night?  Smoak struck out and was called for BI and Granderson was returned to 1st although he was thrown out at third?

Didn't see the play  -- but as described, this is incorrect.  If Smoak was called for BI on strike three, then a runner would be out.

 

But, since you said Granderson was thrown out at third and returned to first, maybe this was "weak" interference.  If R1 attempts to advance and the initial throw does not retire the runner, then it's a dead ball and the runner returns.  The further advance to third and that "out" all happened during a dead ball.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

Didn't see the play  -- but as described, this is incorrect.  If Smoak was called for BI on strike three, then a runner would be out.

 

But, since you said Granderson was thrown out at third and returned to first, maybe this was "weak" interference.  If R1 attempts to advance and the initial throw does not retire the runner, then it's a dead ball and the runner returns.  The further advance to third and that "out" all happened during a dead ball.

With some type of overthrow? I'm going to look for video. It's too tough of a play for me to visualize. 

[roughie]

Smoak struck out.  Definitely not backswing interference.  Crossed the plate (barely) in front of the catcher, who threw to second to try and get Granderson.  Ball skipped into short center field (picked up by SS) and Granderson tried to make it to third since they had a huge shift on for Smoak (3rd baseman was at the SS position).  The pitcher though made it there to get Granderson on a close play.

The reason I am asking is I thought the runner should be out since Smoak had already struck out.

[johnnyg08]

Great video clip! Thanks for the tip! 

 

 

[johnnyg08]

2 minutes ago, roughie said:

Smoak struck out.  Definitely not backswing interference.  Crossed the plate (barely) in front of the catcher, who threw to second to try and get Granderson.  Ball skipped into short center field (picked up by SS) and Granderson tried to make it to third since they had a huge shift on for Smoak (3rd baseman was at the SS position).  The pitcher though made it there to get Granderson on a close play.

The reason I am asking is I thought the runner should be out since Smoak had already struck out.

It was backswing interference you can hear the bat contact the mitt in the clip or 'follow through' interference. It's an out in NFHS, not OBR. Thanks again.

[LRZ]

"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." Comment to Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4).

In the clip, the PU points, indicating "non"-interference?

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, LRZ said:

"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." Comment to Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4).

In the clip, the PU points, indicating "non"-interference?

He's indicating backswing/follow through interference. "That's interference, bat hit the mitt" If the initial throw doesn't retire the runner, the play is over and the runner is returned to the TOP base. 

[beerguy55]

This is where, once again, there'd be value if the umpires told all viewers what was going on.

With all the back and forth that happened between talking to the two coaches, explaining the play, it would take less time to simply turn on your mic and tell everyone:

"Batter is out on strikes - on the follow through his bat contacted the catcher.  It's a dead ball, and since the runner was not thrown out on the catcher's throw, the runner returns to first.  Two out.  First down.  Look at my pipes, I'm Ed Hochuli."

Also to be noted - the official score keeper and official play-by-play has this recorded as Smoak retired due to Batter's Interference, so there's a disconnect somewhere, and it looks like even the MLB score keeper is guessing to what the ump called.

Personally, it looked more like BI than BsI to me - I don't see/hear the bat hit the mitt, but I see Smoak fall over, if slightly, into the throw lane.   If ump judged BI, call is wrong, if ump judged BsI, call is right...right?

So, besides concluding that the call must have been BsI simply because the ump returned R1, is there anything in the mechanic in the video to indicate one way or the other what he actually called?   His point comes after Smoak leans, so it could still be either thing he's calling.  He calls Smoak out (not shown in video), but it was strike three.

 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

This is where, once again, there'd be value if the umpires told all viewers what was going on.

With all the back and forth that happened between talking to the two coaches, explaining the play, it would take less time to simply turn on your mic and tell everyone:

"Batter is out on strikes - on the follow through his bat contacted the catcher.  It's a dead ball, and since the runner was not thrown out on the catcher's throw, the runner returns to first.  Two out.  First down.  Look at my pipes, I'm Ed Hochuli."

Also to be noted - the official score keeper and official play-by-play has this recorded as Smoak retired due to Batter's Interference, so there's a disconnect somewhere, and it looks like even the MLB score keeper is guessing to what the ump called.

Personally, it looked more like BI than BsI to me - I don't see/hear the bat hit the mitt, but I see Smoak fall over, if slightly, into the throw lane.   If ump judged BI, call is wrong, if ump judged BsI, call is right...right?

So, besides concluding that the call must have been BsI simply because the ump returned R1, is there anything in the mechanic in the video to indicate one way or the other what he actually called?   His point comes after Smoak leans, so it could still be either thing he's calling.  He calls Smoak out (not shown in video), but it was strike three.

 

Doesn't it have to be back swing interference? That's the only way there would not be two out on the play. Smoak strikes out swinging, if not backswing interference or any interference at all, R1 is out on the tag at third base. 

 

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Doesn't it have to be back swing interference? That's the only way there would not be two out on the play.

Or the crew kicked it.  Wouldn't be the first time.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, noumpere said:

Or the crew kicked it.  Wouldn't be the first time.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's the first place we need to go...it's more likely that the scorekeeper was wrong than the umpires. 

I'm not sure what they kicked. Smoak struck out, was called for backswing/follow through interference and the R1 was returned to first base. 

In the full clip, I think I remember lip reading the words "backswing interference"

 

[beerguy55]

19 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Doesn't it have to be back swing interference? That's the only way there would not be two out on the play. Smoak strikes out swinging, if not backswing interference or any interference at all, R1 is out on the tag at third base. 

 

You're making the assumption the crew got the call right (which is, admittedly, a safe starting point).

But beyond concluding what the call must have been, because of how it was executed, do you KNOW based on some signal or other action? 

9 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps, but I don't think that's the first place we need to go...it's more likely that the scorekeeper was wrong than the umpires. 

I'm not sure what they kicked. Smoak struck out, was called for backswing/follow through interference and the R1 was returned to first base. 

In the full clip, I think I remember lip reading the words "backswing interference"

 

If the umpire ruled batter interference, and not backswing interference, they kicked it.

The point isn't whether or not the scorekeeper got it wrong, the point is there's no transparent path of communication here - we don't know what the ump said at the time Smoak struck out, we don't know what he said to the other umps, we don't know what he said to the coaches - and we don't know if the score keeper effectively (wrongly?) guessed the call was batter's interference, or was indeed told/confirmed it was batter's interference. 

We are left to conclude what the ump called, based on where he placed the runner - and that conclusion is founded on the premise that they had to have executed the call correctly.  That does not preclude that he made a different call and executed incorrectly.