Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

Batter Interference on Strike Three

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

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? 

If the umpire ruled batter's 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.

Lack of audio evidence to prove correct doesn't mean it was incorrect? 

You see the point at the time the backswing hit the mitt. In the unedited clip, you see the umpire talking to Showalter about backswing interference..the lip reading on that is not difficult. 

What is your end goal here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Lack of audio evidence to prove correct doesn't mean it was incorrect? 

You see the point at the time the backswing hit the mitt. In the unedited clip, you see the umpire talking to Showalter about backswing interference..the lip reading on that is not difficult. 

What is your end goal here? 

Lack of audio evidence is lack of audio evidence.   It simply means we have no direct evidence, that I have seen, to what the umpire ruled.  We are concluding what the umpire ruled by the execution.   

Well, you see a different clip than I do.  The clip in this thread I don't see a bat hit the mitt and I see a point that comes after Smoak leans into F2's throwing lane.  It's very possible the bat did hit the mitt.  I'm simply saying I see no indication that the ump ruled one or the other...he could be ruling either one...he could be pointing because the bat hit the mitt, or he could be pointing because Smoak leaned into the throwing lane.

I haven't seen a clip of the ump talking to Showalter so I don't have anything to lipread - if you have it, by all means I'm open to it.

My end goal is pretty straightforward, and I though I was pretty clear in the first post I made.   Take ten seconds and tell everyone the call and the explanation.  It adds transparency, and removes any question to what was called and ruled.

Even if you could lipread - that doesn't help the people in the stands.  And it doesn't help anyone who doesn't know what backswing interference is.

Umps took more time going back and forth talk to both managers - even if he did tell them it was backswing interference - than it would have taken to open the mic and tell everyone his ruling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

My end goal is pretty straightforward, and I though I was pretty clear in the first post I made.   Take ten seconds and tell everyone the call and the explanation.  It adds transparency, and removes any question to what was called and ruled.

 

 

If that's your end goal, then we agree. I wouldn't have any problem with that. Esp, on the odd plays like this one. There would be multiple ways to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the official scorer need to know what the ruling was in order to score it?  If they know, then shouldn't we all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tborze said:

Wouldn't the official scorer need to know what the ruling was in order to score it?  If they know, then shouldn't we all?

Perhaps the official scorer thought he/she was right? 

And who knows...maybe that's how it is scored? I don't know a whole lot about how to be a scorekeeper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Personally, it looked more like BI than BsI to me - I don't see/hear the bat hit the mitt,

The follow through hits F2's shin. Whatch/listen again. There's clearly the 2 sounds after the swing.

1. The ball hitting the mitt

2. The bat hitting the shin guard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Wouldn't the official scorer need to know what the ruling was in order to score it?  If they know, then shouldn't we all?

The official play by play has Smoak out on Batter Interference...."Justin Smoak strikes out swinging.  Justin Smoak out on batter interference."

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/blue-jays-vs-orioles/2018/04/10/529573#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=play-by-play,game=529573  Top of first.

It could also simply be that the software used to record the play by play doesn't have backswing interference as an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

"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."

This is not correct: because the ball is dead immediately, there was no throw and no opportunity to retire a runner. Runners return no matter what.

You're confusing the penalty for batter INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maven said:

This is not correct: because the ball is dead immediately, there was no throw and no opportunity to retire a runner. Runners return no matter what.

You're confusing the penalty for batter INT.

Fine, whatever the correct ruling is, have the umpire, and not me, announce it.

I was going by @noumpere's earlier post about throwing out the runner directly on weak interference.   I thought the immediate dead ball was only in FED.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

I was going by @noumpere's earlier post about throwing out the runner directly on weak interference.   I thought the immediate dead ball was only in FED.

He can't or doesn't watch the videos often, so he probably assumed that your account was correct.

It is NOT an immediate dead ball in FED, where "followthrough INT" is a version of batter INT, and the ball is delayed dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, maven said:

He can't or doesn't watch the videos often, so he probably assumed that your account was correct.

It is NOT an immediate dead ball in FED, where "followthrough INT" is a version of batter INT, and the ball is delayed dead.

OK - now I'm really confused and I'm wondering if someone is pulling my leg.

Rule 5 Dead Ball - Suspension of Play

SECTION 1 DEAD BALL

ART. 1 . . . Ball becomes dead immediately when:

n. when backswing interference occurs

 

ART. 2 . . . It is a delayed dead ball when: a. there is interference by a batter (Exception 7-3-5 Penalty), 1. When the batter interferes with the catcher attempting to play on a runner, if an out does not result at the end of the catcher’s throw, the ball shall become dead immediately.

I hate life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some codes have a different definition for backswing interference. 

Some call it follow through interference. 

There is something that is referred to as practice swing interference. 

Lots of interference everywhere. In a boat, with a goat. Sam I am. I do not like green eggs and ham. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OK - now I'm really confused and I'm wondering if someone is pulling my leg.

Rule 5 Dead Ball - Suspension of Play

SECTION 1 DEAD BALL

ART. 1 . . . Ball becomes dead immediately when:

n. when backswing interference occurs

 

ART. 2 . . . It is a delayed dead ball when: a. there is interference by a batter (Exception 7-3-5 Penalty), 1. When the batter interferes with the catcher attempting to play on a runner, if an out does not result at the end of the catcher’s throw, the ball shall become dead immediately.

I hate life.

Right: FED doesn't call this backswing INT, they call this (the play in the video) 'followthrough INT', which, as I say, is just a kind of batter INT and a delayed dead ball.

FED also uses the term 'backswing INT', which is what you've found above, but it refers to the batter bumping F2 before the pitch. And in that case, the ball is dead immediately and we reset.

FED did not ask me (or, I expect, @lawump) my opinion of this terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, maven said:

This is not correct: because the ball is dead immediately, there was no throw and no opportunity to retire a runner. Runners return no matter what.

You're confusing the penalty for batter INT.

While the OBR rule and comment are vague about when the ball is dead on backswing int., the MLBUM isn't. If a following throw retires a runner the backswing is ignored. If not the ball is dead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×