Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Richvee

Backswing vs BI

Recommended Posts

NCAA /OBR.   R1 one out 2 strikes. 

R1 stealing , Batter swings and misses. Backswing comes all the way around, does not hit F2 . The batter, still in the box, but the bat is over the plate. It hinders F2’s throw. 

Do we send R1 back with backswing Int since the batter never left the box , or , is it BI because the backswing didn’t contact F2 but the bat, over the plate hindered the catcher?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
2 hours ago, Richvee said:

NCAA /OBR.   R1 one out 2 strikes. 

R1 stealing , Batter swings and misses. Backswing comes all the way around, does not hit F2 . The batter, still in the box, but the bat is over the plate. It hinders F2’s throw. 

Do we send R1 back with backswing Int since the batter never left the box , or , is it BI because the backswing didn’t contact F2 but the bat, over the plate hindered the catcher?  

A clue :) 

OBR:  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).

Share this post


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

Do we send R1 back with backswing Int since the batter never left the box , or , is it BI because the backswing didn’t contact F2 but the bat, over the plate hindered the catcher?  

I've got nothing.

Without contact, not backswing INT.

The batter's mere presence or movement in his swing is not batter INT, even if it hinders F2.

Remember, to rule batter INT, we must have 3 necessary conditions:

  1. runner stealing
  2. illegal act by B
  3. hindrance of F2's play

In your case, #2 seems to be missing.

Share this post


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

I've got nothing.

Without contact, not backswing INT.

The batter's mere presence or movement in his swing is not batter INT, even if it hinders F2.

Remember, to rule batter INT, we must have 3 necessary conditions:

  1. runner stealing
  2. illegal act by B
  3. hindrance of F2's play

In your case, #2 seems to be missing.

Agreed.  The "normal follow through" does NOT qualify as "or makes any other movement" (or whatever the specific rule wording is).

Share this post


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

I've got nothing.

Without contact, not backswing INT.

The batter's mere presence or movement in his swing is not batter INT, even if it hinders F2.

Remember, to rule batter INT, we must have 3 necessary conditions:

  1. runner stealing
  2. illegal act by B
  3. hindrance of F2's play

In your case, #2 seems to be missing.

Interesting.   I never even considered nothing. I see the logic.  However, I’ve got a catcher literally tangled up in a bat that hung out over the plate after batter’ s follow through. Nothing would be the hardest sell of the 3 options. I called it BI live, but so far i’m Leaning towards the backswing int camp. 

Share this post


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

I've got nothing.

Without contact, not backswing INT.

The batter's mere presence or movement in his swing is not batter INT, even if it hinders F2.

Remember, to rule batter INT, we must have 3 necessary conditions:

  1. runner stealing
  2. illegal act by B
  3. hindrance of F2's play

In your case, #2 seems to be missing.

I would think 2 and 3 is 1 condition,  in other words the illegal act is the hindrance of F2's play?   How are these 2 separate conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Interesting.   I never even considered nothing. I see the logic.  However, I’ve got a catcher literally tangled up in a bat that hung out over the plate after batter’ s follow through. Nothing would be the hardest sell of the 3 options. I called it BI live, but so far i’m Leaning towards the backswing int camp. 

A followthrough that does not strike the ball or F2 cannot properly be ruled backswing INT (Ives posted the rule).

Merely being over the plate is nothing: the act alone is not illegal, so the hindrance would be incidental (like incidental contact in basketball not being a foul).

15 minutes ago, Mudder said:

I would think 2 and 3 is 1 condition,  in other words the illegal act is the hindrance of F2's play?   How are these 2 separate conditions?

They're independent conditions because it's possible to have either without the other.

We can have a hindrance without an illegal act, as in the OP.

We can have an illegal act without hindrance (most obviously when there's no runner, but also when F2 throws out a runner).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can be over the plate after his swing with his bat and tangle up with the catcher? What? It altered the catcher's throw. Why doesn't the catcher have a right to an unimpeded, unaltered throw/throwing lane?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Interesting.   I never even considered nothing. I see the logic.  However, I’ve got a catcher literally tangled up in a bat that hung out over the plate after batter’ s follow through. Nothing would be the hardest sell of the 3 options. I called it BI live, but so far i’m Leaning towards the backswing int camp. 

Sounds to me like there was contact, which takes us back to the original question.  With contact, we have backswing interference and sending R1 back to first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m having a hard time visualizing what happened ... how did the bat end up over the plate on his follow through?  By over the plate, what do you mean?  Was it waist high, pointed down at the plate, etc.?

(I’m assuming NCAA/OBR is different on this than NFHS as we’d be talking follow-through interference, not backswing interference.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

He can be over the plate after his swing with his bat and tangle up with the catcher? What? It altered the catcher's throw. Why doesn't the catcher have a right to an unimpeded, unaltered throw/throwing lane?

The short answer is: because the rules confer no such right.

The problem with your idea is that, unlike runner INT, where a fielder can create his own throwing lane, F2 kinda has to get up and throw. And there's a batter right there, swinging through that lane. Unless we expect the batter and his bat to disappear, F2 can't have a "right" to a throwing lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Richvee said:

Backswing comes all the way around, does not hit F2

 

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’ve got a catcher literally tangled up in a bat that hung out over the plate

Well, which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

(I’m assuming NCAA/OBR is different on this than NFHS as we’d be talking follow-through interference, not backswing interference.)

The difference is part terminological, part rule.

FED calls 'followthrough INT' what the other codes call 'backswing INT'. The penalty, however, is different: FED followthrough INT is simply a variety of batter INT and penalized accordingly.

What FED calls 'backswing INT' does not have a name in OBR: but it is recognized and treated the same way (kill it, reset, play on).

Share this post


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

 

Well, which is it?

Maybe he has a long backswing that misses F2 and then as F2 is stepping into his throw, he hits the bat that is hanging out there in front of him?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The short answer is: because the rules confer no such right.

The problem with your idea is that, unlike runner INT, where a fielder can create his own throwing lane, F2 kinda has to get up and throw. And there's a batter right there, swinging through that lane. Unless we expect the batter and his bat to disappear, F2 can't have a "right" to a throwing lane.

Rule book says otherwise. He’s responsible for his follow through. The swing is over. Why is the bat in front of the plate? 

You’re one step away from the coach that says “what’s he supposed to do? He was just swinging”. 

Share this post


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

Maybe he has a long backswing that misses F2 and then as F2 is stepping into his throw, he hits the bat that is hanging out there in front of him?

YES this ^^^^^ 

 Instead of quoting all the questions about trying to visualize what happened. This sums it up best, and I'm still leaning towards backswing INT. My error on the call in the game was overthinking backswing INT. My thinking at the time was the backswing didn't contact the catcher, so we don't have backswing INT. However, after the backswing went by the catcher, and with the bat was hanging over the plate, F2 makes contact with the bat while trying to throw. Further thought and opinions from this board and others in my association, including our rules interpreter, leads me to believe I should have went with backswing INT. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bat was just hanging out there and the contact was not made by the swing, I don’t see how you could go with backswing interference.  The bat may have been there as a result of the backswing, but it was no longer moving through the swing.  I like your initial BI call (if it necessitated a call).  Then again, I’m still having a hard time picturing how it happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

  Then again, I’m still having a hard time picturing how it happened.  

Let me try to paint a better picture. 

RHB, swings and misses. His right hand comes off the bat as his body spins in the box. His chest is now facing 3rd base, his left hand is behind his back holding the bat across the plate. Either the batter was up in the box and/ or F2 was back in the box, but the backswing was able to miss F2 with the bat ending up in front of F2 which now gets in the way of F2’s throw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s starting to come together!  :HD:

 

Was the bat up in the air and the catcher just ran into it or was the end on the ground and the catcher tripped over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

It’s starting to come together!  :HD:

 

Was the bat up in the air and the catcher just ran into it or was the end on the ground and the catcher tripped over it?

Up on the air. That’s what made if look so odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

Rule book says otherwise. He’s responsible for his follow through.

I recall that phrase in FED, but not in OBR / NCAA (but I've forgotten a lot of the finer points).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "responsible for his follow-through" is FED verbiage (7.3.5F), which is why FED makes 'follow-through INT' a version of batter INT. This game was played under NCAA/OBR.

OBR's backswing INT (which is not an OBR term) does not old the batter responsible for his follow-through, which is why he's not out; but the code declines to allow the offense an advantage when the bat hits the ball or F2, and so sends runners back.

But that's not what happened here: as described (and our forensic umpiring has reconstructed), the batter swung, the bat continued around and over the plate, and while there F2 ran into it. F2 hit bat, bat did not hit F2.

I guess folks will draw their own conclusions. Rich seems adamant that this has to be something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 9:35 AM, maven said:

I've got nothing.

Without contact, not backswing INT.

The batter's mere presence or movement in his swing is not batter INT, even if it hinders F2.

Remember, to rule batter INT, we must have 3 necessary conditions:

  1. runner stealing
  2. illegal act by B
  3. hindrance of F2's play

In your case, #2 seems to be missing.

The OP indicates hindrance on F2. 

Interference is defined as any act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder attempting to make a play.

If the BR's bat hinders F2 in retiring a runner attempting to advance, why would it not be BI?

As @maven indicates, F2 ran into the bat. The swing was over with no contact with the batter or the ball so backswing interference is not an option. If F2 ran into anything other than a bat, would there any question that BI would be the likely call?

Could a batter just stick their bat across HP without a swing and hinder F2 without penalty?

Please don't take my comments as attacks. I am trying to figure this out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Could a batter just stick their bat across HP without a swing and hinder F2 without penalty?

I think this is the most relevant point.

Whether he has completed a full swing, or has not swung at all, if the bat is being held in the catcher's way is it not BI?  (hindering the act of the throw, rather than the thrown ball hitting the bat)

Is there a point where we consider the bat an extension of the batter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...