Jump to content

Backswing Interference?

zm1283

By zm1283
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 4203 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

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

I couldn't find video of this. In the SF/STL game last night, STL was on defense with R1 only. STL throws a pitch in the dirt, the batter swings at it and misses, and the runner takes off for second. On the backswing, the batter's bat hits AJ Pierzynski on the helmet as he goes down to block the ball. The ball shoots several feet away, Pierzynski starts to chase it, but seeing the runner take off, he goes down in a heap, supposedly from being hit by the backswing. He looked at the PU (Carlson) and said something and the umpire called time and sent the runner back to first. I guess they called backswing interference. That is all I can think of.

 

Did anyone else see it? Can we get backswing interference when F2 doesn't even have the ball? I guess if you determined it kept him from getting the ball and making a play you could, but Pierzynski had gotten up and started to chase after the ball after getting hit by the bat but then flopped when he saw the runner was going to be safe at second. I believe the runner would have been safe either way.

 

 

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

......and the best actor for a catcher goes to ...............................

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

NOT A.J. !!!!   That was terrible acting!

Rich Ives
Rich Ives

AJ's a known jerk but he really did get hit in the head on this.

Magic

Magic

Posted
Posted

Yes you can. I don't think there is any wording that the catcher has to be in possession or imminent possession of the ball for Backswing Interference to be called.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

......and the best actor for a catcher goes to ............................... :no:

NOT A.J. !!!!

 

That was terrible acting!

  • Like 1
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

Can we get backswing interference when F2 doesn't even have the ball?

 

 

Well, let's check the rule, 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 back- swing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

 

Doesn't require F2 to have the ball.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

So the way I read that, the "flop" was unnecessary as the ball is dead as soon as the bat hits AJ, correct? 

That's the way I see it.

maineump

maineump

Posted
Posted

No question for interference, but AJ didn't go down until he remembered that he was hit -too funny and even the French judge game him a 1.2 on the dive!!

  • Like 1
zm1283

zm1283

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I guess I would have a hard time arguing that the batter actually interfered with the catcher's attempt to make a play. I guess I've never seen this version of backswing interference before. 

MidAmUmp

MidAmUmp

Posted
Posted

It's not backswing interference.  It's backswing contact.  The batter made contact with the catcher on his backswing.  Time is called and no runners can advance.

Senor Azul

Senor Azul

Posted
Posted

Yes, Mr. goody14, in Fed rules the penalty for this form of interference is an out. Federation rules now refer to this as follow-through interference, however. It is covered in rules 7-3-5c, 5-1-2a, and 2-21-4.

  • Like 1
mw94

mw94

Posted
Posted

 

Grabbing an out in FED on this, right?

Don't think so. Same ruling in FED

 

Wrong, In Fed this is considered Interference, the batter would be OUT!

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?  

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?

Did they have to draw a line from 1st to 3rd and call it a foul line?

  • Like 1
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

 

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?

Did they have to draw a line from 1st to 3rd and call it a foul line?

 

Nope..They sure didn't. 

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

 

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?

Did they have to draw a line from 1st to 3rd and call it a foul line?

 

 

I've never seen a field with a line from 1st to 3rd, and if there were one that wouldn't be a foul line. :meditation:

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?  

While I agree that the difference in the terminology is annoying, I think that the (new) FED terminology is more accurate than the OBR terminology.

  • Like 1
Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

 

 

Leave it to FED to confuse things by using the same phrase as OBR to refer to something completely different. 

FED Follow through INT = OBR backswing INT. However the penalties are different. FED get the out, OBR sends the runner back only. 

FED backswing INT now means the batter hits the catcher as he's bringing the bat up to take his stance prior to the pitch. This is just "time" and reset.... Did FED really need to clarify this and give it name? Let alone a name that refers to something completely different in all other baseball books?

Did they have to draw a line from 1st to 3rd and call it a foul line?

 

 

I've never seen a field with a line from 1st to 3rd, and if there were one that wouldn't be a foul line. :meditation:

 

 

That refers to the FED definition of a foul ball so in a sense it would be.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

Maybe a dive. Maybe not. I've been concussed. Once enough to be out cold for several minutes. There's an "aw sh!t" moment between the hit and the effect taking hold.

 

Sometimes we assume things based on other non-pertinent factors, like whether or not we like the person involved.

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