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]

rampro,

 

Thank you! My J/R is a bit older, and that ("Also....") exception is not documented.

 

Just out of curiosity, is the exception in red text or black text?

 

Sayhey,

 

I stand corrected.

 

JM

[rampro]

Ump JM

 

The exception is in black italic.  The J/R edition I have is a 2008 edition.

 

Also, I am rethinking my statement that it is a limitation and not an award because the ball is dead on the interference and once that happens, an offensive player can only advance because of an award resulting from live ball action.  

[UmpJM]

rampro,

 

Mine is a 2003 edition. In that one, J/R "recommendations" that were not "official interpretations" were printed in red text.

 

What do the italics signify in yours? (Mine doesn't have any italicized text.)

 

JM

[rampro]

Ump JM,

 

You may be interested in this explanation.

 

Bear in mind that the process of making new rules interpretations in the Major and Minor Leagues can be very involved; oftentimes many opinions must be considered.  Be that as it may, the words and interpretations herein printed in italics are not to be considered those officially used on the fields of professional baseball.     However, they may very well help you to understand a concept or to decide how to rule on a play that is not specifically addressed anywhere else.

[UmpJM]

rampro,

 

Pretty much the same explanation for the red in my edition - which I suspected might be the case.

 

I have enormous respect for Mr. Roder. He knows more about the proper application of the rules than I ever will.

 

He's a really nice guy, to boot.

 

Absent anything contrary, if it's good enough for Rick, it's good enough for me.

 

JM

[NFUA_44]

Ump JM,

 

You may be interested in this explanation.

 

Bear in mind that the process of making new rules interpretations in the Major and Minor Leagues can be very involved; oftentimes many opinions must be considered.  Be that as it may, the words and interpretations herein printed in italics are not to be considered those officially used on the fields of professional baseball.     However, they may very well help you to understand a concept or to decide how to rule on a play that is not specifically addressed anywhere else.

The Thirteenth Edition, 2010 of the J/R has the same language in italics.  Looking through it's case plays it appears that allowing R1 to keep his advance base on the wild pitch is the one exception.  They have another case play where there is backswing INT and it's a playable ball with R1 returning.

 

The JEA is pretty well bland on the issue other than to say that INT without a play basically equals no out, and send everybody back.

 

Sayhey, I too stand corrected.  And now I know, the rest of the story.

[Sayhey]

Sometimes ya gotta be patient enough to read til the "exception" part of the rule. I appreciate everyone on this site and your commitment to getting it right. We can raise the level of amateur umpiring if we work hard and help each other learn. Cheers!

[Sayhey]

It is not an award. It is a limitation. If backswing infraction occurs during a wild pitch the runners are limited to a one base advance. The runner must "take" the base. It is not an award. The runners deserve the opportunity to move up on the wild pitch. The catcher deserves to be protected from the runners moving up more than one base.

[Rich Ives]

If it's a wild pitch, what did the backswing interfere with?  Take what you can get.

 

But if it was interference the rule is quite clear and there are no exceptions listed in the book or the MLBUM.  Ball is dead - runners cannot advance.

 

Roder has been wrong on occasion - enough to cause a significant decline in his favorable rating. His perspective may have been OK on this one prior to MLB clarifying it, but now that it's been clarified his opinion has been trumped.

[NFUA_44]

If it's a wild pitch, what did the backswing interfere with?  Take what you can get.

 

But if it was interference the rule is quite clear and there are no exceptions listed in the book or the MLBUM.  Ball is dead - runners cannot advance.

 

Roder has been wrong on occasion - enough to cause a significant decline in his favorable rating. His perspective may have been OK on this one prior to MLB clarifying it, but now that it's been clarified his opinion has been trumped.

Rich,

To clarify, are you saying the MLBUM has clarified the sitch and it's now different?  I don't have a current MLBUM, last I tried to get one I got the little update they did in 2010.  Could you post the cite if possible.  Guess I need to go hunting a newer MLBUM too!

[rampro]

After checking my copy of the MLBUM, I have to agree with Rich, no exceptions.  Even on an uncaught 3rd strike, if backswing hits the catcher, the ball is dead and the batter is out.

[Rich Ives]

 

If it's a wild pitch, what did the backswing interfere with?  Take what you can get.

 

But if it was interference the rule is quite clear and there are no exceptions listed in the book or the MLBUM.  Ball is dead - runners cannot advance.

 

Roder has been wrong on occasion - enough to cause a significant decline in his favorable rating. His perspective may have been OK on this one prior to MLB clarifying it, but now that it's been clarified his opinion has been trumped.

Rich,

To clarify, are you saying the MLBUM has clarified the sitch and it's now different?  I don't have a current MLBUM, last I tried to get one I got the little update they did in 2010.  Could you post the cite if possible.  Guess I need to go hunting a newer MLBUM too!

 

 

In the 2012 and 2013 versions of the MLBUM it's Paragraph/Section/Chapter whatever to call it # 28.

 

It's also the last comment under 6.06( c ) in the 2012 and 2013 OBR rule books.

[NFUA_44]

Thank you sir!

[CentralOhioUmp30]

Did my one and only 12U plate game last weekend in a tournament.  Had a catcher who liked to get up close to the plate and ended up being hit twice on a backswing from the same player during two straight at-bats.  Nothing else happened as far as a steal was concerned and I think the second time at-bat there was no one on base.  

 

I remembered reading this thread, but I forgot about what happens to the batter when using FED rules during the first time it happened and the second time I vaguely recalled reading that the batter would be out, but I wasn't 100% certain, so I let it be.  It didn't affect the game at all in the grand scheme of things, but I went right to the rule book and found out I didn't handle it the way I should've and even though the coaches didn't know about it I still hate messing up a rule.

[noumpere]

Did my one and only 12U plate game last weekend in a tournament.  Had a catcher who liked to get up close to the plate and ended up being hit twice on a backswing from the same player during two straight at-bats.  Nothing else happened as far as a steal was concerned and I think the second time at-bat there was no one on base.  

 

I remembered reading this thread, but I forgot about what happens to the batter when using FED rules during the first time it happened and the second time I vaguely recalled reading that the batter would be out, but I wasn't 100% certain, so I let it be.  It didn't affect the game at all in the grand scheme of things, but I went right to the rule book and found out I didn't handle it the way I should've and even though the coaches didn't know about it I still hate messing up a rule.

Im confused by this because I don't see what you messed up.  If there was no steal and the batter didn't become a runner then there was no play and there was no interference to call.

[MadMax]

Alright, so this (all this previous discussion) covers the situation wherein:

- R2, R1, close game... Less than 2 outs. Batter hits one straight down that chews dirt in front of home plate. F2 (Catcher) is the only one who can really make a play on this ball, and he has every right to make an attempt at 3B to out the LBR... However, on the backswing, the bat makes contact with the catcher that hampers his ability to get out of his crouch (in foul ground) and get to the ball.

What's the fallout?

- R2, very close game... # of outs irrelevant. R2 makes a steal attempt of 3B, and on the pitch, batter swing through and on the backswing, the bat makes contact with the catcher.

What's the fallout?

[Mike Prince]

Alright, so this (all this previous discussion) covers the situation wherein:

- R2, R1, close game... Less than 2 outs. Batter hits one straight down that chews dirt in front of home plate. F2 (Catcher) is the only one who can really make a play on this ball, and he has every right to make an attempt at 3B to out the LBR... However, on the backswing, the bat makes contact with the catcher that hampers his ability to get out of his crouch (in foul ground) and get to the ball.

What's the fallout?

- R2, very close game... # of outs irrelevant. R2 makes a steal attempt of 3B, and on the pitch, batter swing through and on the backswing, the bat makes contact with the catcher.

What's the fallout?

 

Situation 1, BR out for INT, keep the runners on 1st and 2nd.

 

Situation 2, if the catcher throws out R2, you have nothing and the ball remains live.  If not, R2 is back on 2B and the batter is out for INT.

 

Not sure what you mean by "fallout".  The closeness of the game has no bearing on how this should be called.