Jump to content

Possible Interference Here?

T-Rav

By T-Rav
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4301 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Richvee
Richvee

I think common sense tells us this isn't backswing INT. WE can pick apart the wording all day, but we all know what the spirit of the backswing rule is for, and this certainly isn't it. Batter swung,

Richvee
Richvee

Ive got BI, not backswing. He didn't hit the catcher, or the ball, with his backswing. Holding the bat in front of the catcher doesn't qualify as backswing INT as far as I can tell. Additionally, I do

BRUMP
BRUMP

I got INT. Since BR was retired R1 is out.

BRUMP

BRUMP

Posted
Posted

http://m.mlb.com/video/v34151309

 

Anyone got anything here?

 

I got INT. Since BR was retired R1 is out.

  • Like 1
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

I definitely have interference.  The question is, should it be backswing interference, or regular BI?  The rule for backswing interference says the bat hits the catcher or the ball, not the other way around.  That said, I would still lean towards backswing interference and return R1 to first.

BRUMP

BRUMP

Posted
Posted

I definitely have interference.  The question is, should it be backswing interference, or regular BI?  The rule for backswing interference says the bat hits the catcher or the ball, not the other way around.  That said, I would still lean towards backswing interference and return R1 to first.

 

@grayhawk I disagree. I think the swing has been completed. The bat is actually moving back towards F2 in a motion not associated with the swing.

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

 

I definitely have interference.  The question is, should it be backswing interference, or regular BI?  The rule for backswing interference says the bat hits the catcher or the ball, not the other way around.  That said, I would still lean towards backswing interference and return R1 to first.

 

@grayhawk I disagree. I think the swing has been completed. The bat is actually moving back towards F2 in a motion not associated with the swing.

 

 

There's nothing in the rule about the swing being completed.  IMO, the bat is there as part of his backswing.  That would be my call.

  • Like 1
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

Ive got BI, not backswing. He didn't hit the catcher, or the ball, with his backswing. Holding the bat in front of the catcher doesn't qualify as backswing INT as far as I can tell. Additionally, I don't think there was anything unintentional about the bat being there. I get the feeling he held it there intentionally, which in and of itself would nullify backswing INT. 

 

 

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

  • Like 2
BRUMP

BRUMP

Posted
Posted

 

 

I definitely have interference.  The question is, should it be backswing interference, or regular BI?  The rule for backswing interference says the bat hits the catcher or the ball, not the other way around.  That said, I would still lean towards backswing interference and return R1 to first.

 

@grayhawk I disagree. I think the swing has been completed. The bat is actually moving back towards F2 in a motion not associated with the swing.

 

 

There's nothing in the rule about the swing being completed.  IMO, the bat is there as part of his backswing.  That would be my call.

 

 

The way i see it is 

 

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

 

the bolded action was already complete so anything additional would be BI not backswing INT

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

There's nothing in the rule about the swing being completed.

I don't understand this point. At some point in time B's backswing will cease. If B's backswing is complete, how would backswing interference apply anymore?

 

I don't think that backswing interference applies on this play because B never hit F2 with the bat (unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing). Though F2 and the bat eventually contacted, I think there is difference between the bat hitting F2 (backswing interference) and F2 hitting the bat being held out in front of him (BI)...Nor do I think that this was unintentional.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

It happened during the backswing! There was int! Call it!

  • Like 1
JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

Why are we adding extra interpretations. No such thing as a competed backswing.

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

No such thing as a completed backswing.

 

Ever ??? Its gonna get crowded in the batter's box if no one ever completes their swing.

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

I think common sense tells us this isn't backswing INT. WE can pick apart the wording all day, but we all know what the spirit of the backswing rule is for, and this certainly isn't it. Batter swung, and hung that bat out there in front of F2 on purpose. 

  • Like 3
basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

Why are we adding extra interpretations. No such thing as a competed backswing.

I think there is, and we have to judge it to determine intent. Is this action motivated by an attempt to hit the pitch or to interfere with the catcher?
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

At 1000 meters you could see it was intentional!

I think the PU ws NOT watching the plate area.

He was watching the play at second base.

 

Like chief Rolo said said "There was int! Call it!

@Jaxrolo         

  • Like 1
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

@BigUmpire: I suspect you're right that the batter intentionally delayed his swing. However, nothing in the rules prohibits him doing so, provided we rule that it was part of his swing (which this was, IMJ). I myself would be rather conservative about getting into the business of telling batters how they're allowed to swing.

 

If you rule that it isn't part of his swing, you could rule that it was "any other movement" and rule it BI. 6.06(c )

 

I agree that PU likely missed the contact. A lesson for us: keep our eyes on the ball and the part of the play that we're responsible for.

 

Backswing INT. B out on strike 3, the ball is dead, R1 back to 1B.

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

@maven

I would rule and exlain the batter knew what he was doing and it was NOT part of his back swing.

 

His delay in dropping he bat would be the cause for my INT call.

 

I would also eject Maddon because he is an asshole and then my crew would buy me a BIG steak for doing so BECASE he is a BIG asshole.

  • Like 1
Sayhey

Sayhey

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the video. Good subject. I take no pleasure disagreeing with Maven. He is my favorite on this site. Major Dave encouraged us to think. Good thinking going on here

I agree with Maven that the plate umpire did not see Molina's arm contact the bat.

I have interference without contact. What the batter did was not natural

I also believe the batter has a right to swing unimpeded by the catcher. After his swing he is responsible for his bat on his backswing. I also believe there is a start and an end to your backswing. I saw an end to a backswing and a batter intentionally hold his bat in an unnatural movement to intentionally interfere. Please let me point out that backswing interference is an out in Fed. And delayed dead ball in obr. Send em back if safe. I know you know that but it gives me a chance to point out yet another difference in Fed. And obr, which sucks. Having said that I dislike the differences in Fed. And Obr, this might be a good penalty for young players. It's a hard penalty for a dangerous act. I told a catcher last night to be careful because the batter had a big backswing. Some mlb hitters will warn a catcher

If we are using replay to get calls right why didn't the 1st base umpire give plate umpire info to change call. He must have agreed. Plate umpire called a foul ball from 115 feet the previous day. Is this scenario eligible for review?

Sayhey

Sayhey

Posted
Posted

You guys are great! Grayhawk, I take absolutely no pleasure in disagreeing with you.

I just thought the backswing had come to its normal end and we transitioned to another phase.

Not sure what you would call that phase. Post backswing? I hang my hat on," movement within the box". I judge that he held the bat in front of the catcher intentionally. Molina's normal throwing motion brought him into contact with the batter's bat. Hope you have a safe and fun July 4th. I am in Tahoe at a tournament

MikeSafari

MikeSafari

Posted
Posted

Here's a similar play where backswing interference was called:

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v34331025

 

Right at the end you can hear Mike DiMuro explaining it to Lackey: "They overturned it at second, made him safe, but he has to go back to first on the backswing interference, so..."

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

That's a tough call (BI, or Backswing INT) as it happens right in front of you, ............but ............I have to be in the camp of INT, and not backswing

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...