Batter's back swing interference or catcher's interference?

[Aussie123]

During the home opener LL game with two runners on, the young 12 year old batter, probably inspired by A-Rod's abysmally unproductive post-season long & loopy swing, flails wildly at a pitch. His one-handed follow through swing comes around to make contact with the catcher's mitt. No, it wasn't blatant, just a subtle swiping contact of the catcher's mitt and the catcher held onto the ball. R1 & R2 held their respective positions and made no attempts to advance. There was never an attempt on the catcher's part to even think about a throw behind either base runner.

 

The incidental contact was a nonevent that went unnoticed, even by my BU, a young graduate of our local High School umpire association. It was not until I brought it up between innings that the contact became a worthy point of discussion in an otherwise dull 8-1 game. My partner felt, that given the contact was on the back swing and not the front swing, the batter should have been called out for batter's interference? I agreed that any contact made by the batter on the front swing would be catcher's interference, but, given there was no attempt by the catcher to make a defensive throw to any base, why would it be an automatic batter's interference call on back swing contact? I reminded him that the pitch was rather high and inside and the catcher was playing in tight to the right-handed batter. The culpability of the incidental contact was, in my opinion, somewhat shared between both the batter, with his loopy swing and the catcher, who was playing in close on the batter. He maintained there was reference in the rule book pertaining to back swing contact and batter's interference...myself, I could not find it?

 

I know in the latter innings of a less than inspiring 8-1 game and with the sizzling smell of our free burgers n fries wafting in from behind the backstop, the interference discussion did not continue long. Curious otherwise for the group's opinion?

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[UmpJM]

Under OBR-based rule sets (such as LL) this is commonly referred to as "backswing interference".

 

The ball is dead and no runner(s) may advance. There is no further penalty.

 

From the OBR 6.06( c ) Comment:

 

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

before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball

will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

 

JM

[Rich Ives]

"before the catcher has securely held the ball" has been removed for 2013

 

which gets the written rule to what the MLBUM said to call anyhow.

[noumpere]

Even in FED what you describe is nothing -- but it had the potential to be something.

[grayhawk]

Even in FED what you describe is nothing -- but it had the potential to be something.

 

 

Agreed, and I don't agree, at all, with the way Fed handles this if it had been something. Sending runners back seems to be a much more appropriate consequence than getting an out on the batter for backswing interference.

[Sayhey]

If the catcher is throwing you let the play happen. If the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner you call time and return the runners. If you have a wild pitch on backswing interference( the ball is away from the catcher) the runners are allowed to move up 1 base only. Backswing interference is a special type of batter interference. Feds have this as batter interference and the batter is out. Don't call it that way. He defense does not deserve an out on this infraction

[noumpere]

If the catcher is throwing you let the play happen. If the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner you call time and return the runners. If you have a wild pitch on backswing interference( the ball is away from the catcher) the runners are allowed to move up 1 base only. Backswing interference is a special type of batter interference. Feds have this as batter interference and the batter is out. Don't call it that way. He defense does not deserve an out on this infraction

Sentences 1 and 2 I agree with even if they aren't part of the OP

 

Sentence 3 I'd like to see where you got that

 

Sentence 4 and 5 I agree with

 

Sentence 6 and 7 I disagree with, strongly.

[UmpJM]

Concur with noumpere except I'll just go ahead and flat out disagree with sentence 3.

 

Because Sayhey just made that one up.

 

And I actually agree with Sayhey on his last sentence, but it's still the rule in FED.

 

JM

[mstaylor]

I'm with noumpire and John, including John's agreeing with the last sentence. It is a dumb Fed rule, but a Fed rule none the less. 

[NFUA_44]

Concur with noumpere except I'll just go ahead and flat out disagree with sentence 3.

 

Because Sayhey just made that one up.

 

And I actually agree with Sayhey on his last sentence, but it's still the rule in FED.

 

JM

I'm almost dizzy trying to follow all that!  And sentence 3 sounds alot like a local rule that someone made up.

[Thunderheads]

I would venture to say that if you're doing a HS game and this happens and you apply the OBR ruling,....you'd never hear a peep!

[Mike Prince]

I would venture to say that if you're doing a HS game and this happens and you apply the OBR ruling,....you'd never hear a peep!

 

Don't be so sure of that Jeff, the one time you think that you will get a coach that knows the rule.  Not high probability I know.

[Thunderheads]

I would venture to say that if you're doing a HS game and this happens and you apply the OBR ruling,....you'd never hear a peep!

 

Don't be so sure of that Jeff, the one time you think that you will get a coach that knows the rule.  Not high probability I know.

Absolutely agree!  I'm just saying this because of the percentage of coaches who have no idea what the rule differences are between OBR and FED ....but yes....they're out there!

[plateumpire]

This is how I learned it from a pro instructor I have. The catcher should not be penalized for contact on the batter's back swing. This is what it says in the Jaska/Roder manual Rules for professional baseball in chapter 13:

Backswing: A batter's backswing occurs  after he has swung through the pitch, and he continues his swing all the way around until the bat reaches the vicinity of the catcher. If a batter contacts the catcher, or his mitt, or the baseball unintentionally with his backswing, it is interference without a play. [ NFHS 7.3.5f, 8.4.1h] If the catcher is in the act of throwing the ball in a play against a runner and the backswing contacts him, the throw should be allowed to occur, and if it directly results in the out of the runner played against, the interference is nullified, and the play stands. If the throw does not directly result in the out of the runner played against, or the throw is not made, it is considered interference without a play; the ball is dead and the runners must return to their TOP bases.

[Sayhey]

I got pretty dizzy trying to follow all this too. Not sure which one some of you think I have wrong.

I have zero ego in all of this. If I am wrong I want to know and fix it. Maybe it is the wild pitch situation that sounds wrong. When the batter is guilty of backswing infraction and there is a wild pitch or passed ball all runners are allowed to move up only 1 base. The batter is guilty of an infraction but the pitcher has to take responsibility for the wild pitch. The wild pitch means all runners can move up a max of 1 base. The catcher is still free to throw a runner out but he probably won't unless the ball Bounces right back to him off the backstop.

[UmpJM]

Sayhey,

 

If the batter contacts the Catcher with his bat on the follow-through and the catcher is unable to catch the pitch, the ball is immediately dead.

 

Runners return to their TOP base, and, in FED (only), the batter is out for his interference.

 

There is no support in any rule code for "runners get (only) one base if it's a wild pitch/passed ball".

 

Perhaps you could cite the rule you think supports your suggested ruling, and we could try to figure out what is confusing you.

 

JM

[mstaylor]

I got pretty dizzy trying to follow all this too. Not sure which one some of you think I have wrong.

I have zero ego in all of this. If I am wrong I want to know and fix it. Maybe it is the wild pitch situation that sounds wrong. When the batter is guilty of backswing infraction and there is a wild pitch or passed ball all runners are allowed to move up only 1 base. The batter is guilty of an infraction but the pitcher has to take responsibility for the wild pitch. The wild pitch means all runners can move up a max of 1 base. The catcher is still free to throw a runner out but he probably won't unless the ball Bounces right back to him off the backstop.

When the batter contacts the catcher on the backswing the ball is dead. The runners are going back, in fed the batter is out. No exceptions I have ever been aware of. 

[Sayhey]

The ball is dead on backswing if the catcher is not throwing against a runner. If the catcher is throwing against a runner the ball is live to give the catcher an opportunity to get an out. If the catcher's Initial throw does not retire a runner the ball is dead and all runners are returned to their T.O.P. base. If there is a wild pitch and the catcher has no play because of how far the ball is away from him you have a dead ball and all runners get 90 feet.

[NFUA_44]

The ball is dead on backswing if the catcher is not throwing against a runner. If the catcher is throwing against a runner the ball is live to give the catcher an opportunity to get an out. If the catcher's Initial throw does not retire a runner the ball is dead and all runners are returned to their T.O.P. base. If there is a wild pitch and the catcher has no play because of how far the ball is away from him you have a dead ball and all runners get 90 feet.

He can't be "throwing" against a runner when he does not have the ball.  It's at the back stop remember.  Since there is no possibility of him making a play against a runner the ball is immediately dead and the runners are returned to their TOP base.

 

There is no rule, interp, or authority that gives any runner an award of 90 feet for this.  If you believe there is then you need to quote that reference specifically, because several people in this thread have provided you all of the relevant references to show you otherwise.

[Sayhey]

Why should the pitcher not pay for his wild pitch?

The runners deserve the right to move up even though their teammate hit the catcher with his backswing. Sometimes you have to look in casebook or read an interpretation of a rule. Sometimes you have to look at what has been ruled historically. The actual rule book is very poorly written.

[UmpJM]

Sayhey,

 

You had it nailed in your penultimate post right up until the end when you said "...and all runners get 90 feet."

 

They don't.

 

There is no rule, interpretation, or case play that says they do.

 

If you've got a cite, I'm all ears.

 

If you don't (you don't), you're just "making stuff up".

 

JM

[NFUA_44]

Why should the pitcher not pay for his wild pitch?

The runners deserve the right to move up even though their teammate hit the catcher with his backswing. Sometimes you have to look in casebook or read an interpretation of a rule. Sometimes you have to look at what has been ruled historically. The actual rule book is very poorly written.

What says the pitcher has to "pay" for a wild pitch?  Is there a rule or something that requires this? 

 

The book is poorly written, case plays, interps., and ref manuals, help clarify the poorly written document.  However you won't find anything that supports your idea, except maybe at this web address: http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/

 

In full disclosure this link was purloined from a prior post by none other than JM himself.

[mstaylor]

If a wild pitch is so wild that the catcher lets it go to backstop, why would there be a swing? 

[Mike Prince]

Why should the pitcher not pay for his wild pitch?

The runners deserve the right to move up even though their teammate hit the catcher with his backswing. Sometimes you have to look in casebook or read an interpretation of a rule. Sometimes you have to look at what has been ruled historically. The actual rule book is very poorly written.

 

Because you can't make subjective assumptions as to whether the catcher could/would have stopped it or not.  He was interfered with by the batter and lost his opportunity to field the pitch and the ball is immediately dead.  We just had a long thread about CI where the batter does not swing, a similar line of thought applies here as well.

 

If you can provide an actual casebook example to back up your third and fourth sentences then you may have an argument to make.

 

I agree with your last sentence but we must play the cards we are dealt.

[noumpere]

Why should the pitcher not pay for his wild pitch?

The runners deserve the right to move up even though their teammate hit the catcher with his backswing. Sometimes you have to look in casebook or read an interpretation of a rule. Sometimes you have to look at what has been ruled historically. The actual rule book is very poorly written.

actually I would say that if its a wild pitch then the rule might not apply at all.  the rule deals with the follow-through preventing the catcher from being able to  catch the pitch or make an immediate subsequent play.

 

Now if it happens jest as the catcher is sliding over or trying to block the pitch then the rule applies - the ball is dead and runners return.

 

If it happens when the ball is already past the catcher then I probably have nothing and the ball stays live.

 

Never do I have a 1 base award, again unless and until you can provide a reference.

[rampro]

Sayhey,

 

You had it nailed in your penultimate post right up until the end when you said "...and all runners get 90 feet."

 

They don't.

 

There is no rule, interpretation, or case play that says they do.

 

If you've got a cite, I'm all ears.

 

If you don't (you don't), you're just "making stuff up".

 

JM

From Jaksas/Roder  Page 96 Backswing

 

Exception: 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.  Also, backswing interference may occur after a wild pitch (ball is far removed from the catcher, who has no play); the ball is dead and runners are allowed only one  base.

 

It appears to be more of a limitation rather than an outright award. (according to J/R).