Follow Through Interference

[goody14]

The thread in the Professional Forum got me thinking about the FED rule on this.

 

Imagine these situations:

 

1.)  R1 stealing, batter swings and misses and his follow through hits F2.

Simple enough - if F2 cannot throw out the R1 call batter out and return runner.

 

2.) R1 not stealing but the batter swings and misses at a ball in the dirt.  R1 takes off once ball gets away.  F2 goes after ball but gets whacked by the follow through (very similar to the AJ play the other night).

I think this is BI as well.  Batter out and runner returns

 

3.) No one is one base and batter's follow through hits F2.

This is nothing.  No play to be made so no interference (this was in the 2014 interpretations)

 

4.) R1 not stealing.  Batter swings and misses and hits F2 on follow through.  The contact knocks the ball loose which then causes R1 to try for second

This is the tricky one for me.  At the time of the "interference" there was no play to be made.  The contact caused the potential for a play.  I would kill the ball and return the runner.  I don't know if the rules or interpretations back up this line of thinking.  The 2015 case book does not contain a similar play (that I saw at first glance).

 

What do you guys have in this situation?

 

[maven]

1. Batter INT

2. Batter INT

3. Nothing

4. Batter INT: the batter is responsible for his follow through. See 7.3.5 F, which is not exactly the same play, but makes the batter liable for interfering after his swing.

[Richvee]

 

 

4.) R1 not stealing.  Batter swings and misses and hits F2 on follow through.  The contact knocks the ball loose which then causes R1 to try for second

This is the tricky one for me.  At the time of the "interference" there was no play to be made.  The contact caused the potential for a play.  I would kill the ball and return the runner.  I don't know if the rules or interpretations back up this line of thinking.  The 2015 case book does not contain a similar play (that I saw at first glance).

 

What do you guys have in this situation?

 

 

 

4. Batter INT: the batter is responsible for his follow through. See 7.3.5 F, which is not exactly the same play, but makes the batter liable for interfering after his swing.

OK. So let's say R1, not stealing, B2 swings and hits F2 on the follow through, knocks the ball loose, but R1 never moves. Do we call BI? If we say this is not BI, then essentially, we're calling the batter out because R1 saw the ball roll away and decided to run. Doesn't seem right.

 

To me, it makes sense that if there are runners on, and the batter hits F2 with the follow through, if the runners weren't running on the pitch and take off AFTER the contact and subsequent lose of the ball by F2, that killing the play and sending the runners back would be the right thing. 

 

The ruling in 7.3.5 F says The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base.

 

In this play I believe B3 is out for INT because he cannot advance to 1st after hitting the ball away from F2 on the follow through. So he's out for strike three and the ball is dead so he can't adavance. R1 saw this, took off for home and was sent back to 3rd. Had this been strike one or two, I don't think B3 is out. I think the ball is dead and R1 returns because R1 didn't start to advance until after the follow through INT. The ball is dead at that point.