Interference not called because it's not interference?

[johnnyg08]

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14841971

Was this not called INT because it was not a swing, but a bunt attempt and the batter pulled his bat back and the bat inadvertently went into the catcher's mitt?

[Guest]

I am not a mindreader but I presume this was handled by the HP Umpire as being "backswing" interference. You can't have CI because the contact does not occur during the batter's attempt to bunt the ball. But since the ball fell to the ground as a foul ball, there was no need to enforce any of the protocols relating to backswing interference.

[JaxRolo]

There is no way that is interference. PU got it right. :notworthy:

[mazzamouth]

I am not a mindreader but I presume this was handled by the HP Umpire as being "backswing" interference. You can't have CI because the contact does not occur during the batter's attempt to bunt the ball. But since the ball fell to the ground as a foul ball, there was no need to enforce any of the protocols relating to backswing interference.

But this is not a Backswing INt play...and really couldnt be enforced as a Back Swing INT.

[UmpJeff]

It's nice to hear the announcers say they didn't know the rule versus opening up their mouths and spewing what most of us would otherwise deem as rubbish. Refreshing...

[tiger49]

It looks like interference without a play. The runners weren't advancing, so kill it before you get problems.

24, this is part of the reason behind the new BC interp that would cover this situation.