Batter out or safe?

[Guest BT3]

RH batter with 0 outs. No runners on base.  2-2 count, batter swings at pitch number 5 which is eye-ball high and misses.  Catcher raises up to catch ball, ball hits catchers mit and pops out and up and falls towards 3rd base line behind the batter.  Batter's follow through of swing hits the ball before it touches the ground and knocks ball towards backstop.  Runner runs to 1st before catcher can retrieve the ball.  What should the call be?

[UmpJM]

BT3,

 

The ball is dead on the backswing interference, and the batter-runner is out (on the 3rd strike).

 

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,

it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner

shall advance on the play.

 

Edited to add...

 

Also, from the MLBUM:

 

6.9 BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER 

 

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire's judgment unintentionally hits the

catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is

still in the batter's box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead,

however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation

where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the

same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter

would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and

the batter declared out.

 

 

JM

[Lala]

Well my previous post was wrong based on what Ump just said...oops!

[Old Skool]

My quick thoughts as I run out the door to a game is batter-interference on a live ball.  He's out.  Will have to look it up to night to see if i'm right. By the time doubleheader id over we will have citations most likely.

[BRUMP]

 

RH batter with 0 outs. No runners on base.  2-2 count, batter swings at pitch number 5 which is eye-ball high and misses.  Catcher raises up to catch ball, ball hits catchers mit and pops out and up and falls towards 3rd base line behind the batter.  Batter's follow through of swing hits the ball before it touches the ground and knocks ball towards backstop.  Runner runs to 1st before catcher can retrieve the ball.  What should the call be?

From your description, and without consulting a rule book, I would probably have the following:

1. Dropped third strike

2. Unintentional touching by the batter (play on)

3. Batter safe at first.

 

 

intent is not the issue here....it is backswing INT here from 6.06 comment ball is dead and it is ruled a strike no runners can advance.....batter is out on the K

[Lala]

BT3,

 

The ball is dead on the backswing interference, and the batter-runner is out (on the 3rd strike).

 

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,

it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner

shall advance on the play.

 

Edited to add...

 

Also, from the MLBUM:

 

6.9 BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER 

 

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire's judgment unintentionally hits the

catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is

still in the batter's box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead,

however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation

where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the

same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter

would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and

the batter declared out.

 

 

JM

UmpJM: is this the same in Fed where if a batter on the backswing hits the catches it's a strike?

[noumpere]

Same ruling in HS -- see case 7-3-5F

 

and NCAA -- 6-2d

[grayhawk]

The BRD has an interesting comment for OBR:

 

OBR:  The umpire declares interference on the backswing if the bat contacts the catcher before he has "securely held the ball."

 

In this case, F2 had a chance to securely hold the ball and failed.  We all know that if the batter inadvertently kicked the ball (rather than his backswing hitting it) this would be a "play on" situation.  Not sure the bat changes that based on the OP's description.

[Lala]

Grayhawk's point about kicking the ball is what came to my mind.  Why the difference?  Just because you could probably hit the ball unintentionally farther than you could kick it?

[noumpere]

The BRD has an interesting comment for OBR:

 

OBR:  The umpire declares interference on the backswing if the bat contacts the catcher before he has "securely held the ball."

 

In this case, F2 had a chance to securely hold the ball and failed.  We all know that if the batter inadvertently kicked the ball (rather than his backswing hitting it) this would be a "play on" situation.  Not sure the bat changes that based on the OP's description.

 

It does change it.

 

And, the comment about "before securely holding the ball" has been removed from OBR.  It was removed so that it's still "weak interference" even if it happens after the catcher has caught the ball (and is preparing to throw to second with a stealing R1, for example).  It was just a "clean up" and had been ruled that way before the actual change.

[noumpere]

Grayhawk's point about kicking the ball is what came to my mind.  Why the difference?  Just because you could probably hit the ball unintentionally farther than you could kick it?

FED says its because the batter gets an unhindered chance to swing at the pitch, but once hes done that the catcher gets an unhindered chance to catch the ball (I'm parafrazing, of course).  If they both fail (ha!) and the ball gets to the ground, then both get a new chance -- so the unintentional kicking is ignored.

[UmpJM]

Lala,

 

In this particular case, yes, the ruling would be the same under FED.

 

Generally, the FED backswing interference rule holds the batter to a greater degree of liability than does OBR or NCAA. (See FED 7.3.5F)

 

JM

[grayhawk]

I reread the OP and agree that this is clearly interference.  On my first reading, I pictured a ball that had already dropped to the ground, but I see that the ball had slipped out of the catcher's mitt and was still in the air when the batter's backswing hit it.

 

Since I am not "The most interesting man in the world" - it was "my bad."

[Guest BT3]

Thanks for the clarification.  I thought the batter should be out, however both umpires allowed the runner to remain at 1B.

[Lala]

Lala,

 

In this particular case, yes, the ruling would be the same under FED.

 

Generally, the FED backswing interference rule holds the batter to a greater degree of liability than does OBR or NCAA. (See FED 7.3.5F)

 

JM

Thanks UmpJM

[Replacematt]

In this case, F2 had a chance to securely hold the ball and failed.  We all know that if the batter inadvertently kicked the ball (rather than his backswing hitting it) this would be a "play on" situation.  Not sure the bat changes that based on the OP's description.

So, what you're asking is the bat now part of the hands?