Follow-Through Interference Scenario

[Pops]

Here in Illinois it's currently 4 degrees, the ground is ice covered, and the last thing most people think about is baseball. But in January I start preparing for the upcoming spring HS season by reading all the old posts on this site from the off-season that I might have missed.  It starts stimulating the brain again to think umpiring.

 

So I was looking through the follow-through interference posts from October and found that one scenario was not completely answered. The pre-season guide addresses the change in terminology to FTI, but does not address this scenario:

 

1 out, first pitch to B, R1 not stealing

B swings and misses

Follow through hits F2 glove and knocks ball away

R1 sees this happen and advances to 2B

 

I can't see anything in the Fed rules or case book that specifically addresses this play. I would be inclined to kill the play and send the runner back to first. To do anything else just doesn't seem right. What say you?

[VAUmp]

That is what I would do as well.

[zm1283]

I looked at FED's Power Point for 2015 earlier. Their insistence on their own verbiage and definitions for "follow through interference" and "backswing interference" is just plain stupid. 

 

Backswing INT = The batter's bat going backwards while practice swinging and hitting the catcher

 

Follow through INT = What everyone else calls backswing INT at every other level. 

 

Do they just do this stuff to make themselves look innovative? There is no reason for this to be any different than NCAA or OBR. 

[noumpere]

I looked at FED's Power Point for 2015 earlier. Their insistence on their own verbiage and definitions for "follow through interference" and "backswing interference" is just plain stupid. 

 

Backswing INT = The batter's bat going backwards while practice swinging and hitting the catcher

 

Follow through INT = What everyone else calls backswing INT at every other level. 

 

Do they just do this stuff to make themselves look innovative? There is no reason for this to be any different than NCAA or OBR. 

The problem is that too many FED umps (and some coaches) insist that obr "backswing interference" can't happen on the swing.

 

It's a "lowest common denominator" type of thing.

 

And, if I were writing the rules from scratch, the new FED terminology is what I would use.

[Jimurray]

Here in Illinois it's currently 4 degrees, the ground is ice covered, and the last thing most people think about is baseball. But in January I start preparing for the upcoming spring HS season by reading all the old posts on this site from the off-season that I might have missed.  It starts stimulating the brain again to think umpiring.

 

So I was looking through the follow-through interference posts from October and found that one scenario was not completely answered. The pre-season guide addresses the change in terminology to FTI, but does not address this scenario:

 

1 out, first pitch to B, R1 not stealing

B swings and misses

Follow through hits F2 glove and knocks ball away

R1 sees this happen and advances to 2B

 

I can't see anything in the Fed rules or case book that specifically addresses this play. I would be inclined to kill the play and send the runner back to first. To do anything else just doesn't seem right. What say you?

Why wouldn't the batter be out? FED says he's responsible for his follow-through.

[Pops]

 

Here in Illinois it's currently 4 degrees, the ground is ice covered, and the last thing most people think about is baseball. But in January I start preparing for the upcoming spring HS season by reading all the old posts on this site from the off-season that I might have missed.  It starts stimulating the brain again to think umpiring.

 

So I was looking through the follow-through interference posts from October and found that one scenario was not completely answered. The pre-season guide addresses the change in terminology to FTI, but does not address this scenario:

 

1 out, first pitch to B, R1 not stealing

B swings and misses

Follow through hits F2 glove and knocks ball away

R1 sees this happen and advances to 2B

 

I can't see anything in the Fed rules or case book that specifically addresses this play. I would be inclined to kill the play and send the runner back to first. To do anything else just doesn't seem right. What say you?

Why wouldn't the batter be out? FED says he's responsible for his follow-through.

 

I say no because the rule is vague and implies that the catcher must first have a play to make before the infraction occurs. At least that's how I read it. And it also says that a runner has to be on base in the first place. Must a potential play on a runner be necessary before the batter is called out? If a runner is just standing there after the FTI, I wouldn't call it. I think the rule was put in place only for those times when there is a potential play on the runner. And in my original post, there is no play until after the bat hits F2.

[noumpere]

 

Why wouldn't the batter be out? FED says he's responsible for his follow-through.

 

 

It's a type of interference.  Interference is hindering a play.  No play, no interference.

[maven]

I say no because the rule is vague and implies that the catcher must first have a play to make before the infraction occurs. At least that's how I read it. And it also says that a runner has to be on base in the first place. Must a potential play on a runner be necessary before the batter is called out? If a runner is just standing there after the FTI, I wouldn't call it. I think the rule was put in place only for those times when there is a potential play on the runner. And in my original post, there is no play until after the bat hits F2.

First, the rule is no more vague than the BI rule: it's just renaming one kind of BI.

 

Second, FED does not require an actual play to rule FTI/BI. Remember, 7-3-5 prohibits the batter hindering the catcher's "fielding or throwing," not just throwing. For example:

 

*7.3.5 SITUATION C: B3 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B3 runs to first base and is safe.

RULING: B3 is ruled out.

This is not your play, but it undermines your requirement of an actual play/throw/attempted throw by F2. Since the batter's actions have prevented/hindered F2's opportunity to play on the advancing BR, he is to be ruled out for FTI.

 

I would apply the same principle in your play. Batter out, runner returns.

 

In FED, there is no infraction by the batter (at least not in 7-3) that is penalized only by returning runners.

[Richvee]

 

 

Why wouldn't the batter be out? FED says he's responsible for his follow-through.

 

 

It's a type of interference.  Interference is hindering a play.  No play, no interference.

 

Exactly!! So the question remains...

 

Runner on (doesn't matter where) batter swings and misses. Runner isn't running. Batter's follow through hits F2's glove and knocks the ball loose. Seeing this, NOW runner takes off for next base. 

 

I'd say in such a situation, the ball is dead immediately when the batter contacts F2's glove. So the runner cannot advance. Return the runner, strike on the batter and let's play. Not sure what FED says here.

 

Again, I 100% understand if the runner is running on the pitch and follow through INT occurs, in FED, it's treated like any other BI, Batter's out runner returns. My question is what does FED want if the runner takes off AFTER the follow through contact? 

[Richvee]

 

I say no because the rule is vague and implies that the catcher must first have a play to make before the infraction occurs. At least that's how I read it. And it also says that a runner has to be on base in the first place. Must a potential play on a runner be necessary before the batter is called out? If a runner is just standing there after the FTI, I wouldn't call it. I think the rule was put in place only for those times when there is a potential play on the runner. And in my original post, there is no play until after the bat hits F2.

First, the rule is no more vague than the BI rule: it's just renaming one kind of BI.

 

Second, FED does not require an actual play to rule FTI/BI. Remember, 7-3-5 prohibits the batter hindering the catcher's "fielding or throwing," not just throwing. For example:

 

*7.3.5 SITUATION C: B3 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B3 runs to first base and is safe.

RULING: B3 is ruled out.

This is not your play, but it undermines your requirement of an actual play/throw/attempted throw by F2. Since the batter's actions have prevented/hindered F2's opportunity to play on the advancing BR, he is to be ruled out for FTI.

 

I would apply the same principle in your play. Batter out, runner returns.

 

In FED, there is no infraction by the batter (at least not in 7-3) that is penalized only by returning runners.

 

I don't think that's what 7.3.5 is aiming at. This case play is only saying this is not an uncaught 3rd strike because the batter caused F2 to drop the ball. Notice it doesn't say Batter is out for INT. 

[Jimurray]

This is a 2 year old case play so the cite may be different but it is still in the book. No mention of runners stealing.

7.3.5 SITUATION F:

With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores.

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

[maven]

I don't think that's what 7.3.5 is aiming at. This case play is only saying this is not an uncaught 3rd strike because the batter caused F2 to drop the ball. Notice it doesn't say Batter is out for INT.

Rich, we know that it's about INT because it's a case for the INT rule, 7-3-5.

 

Also, the batter causing F2 to drop the ball IS the infraction (FTI, this year). On what other basis would you rule the batter out?

[Pops]

This is a 2 year old case play so the cite may be different but it is still in the book. No mention of runners stealing.

7.3.5 SITUATION F:

With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores.

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

I've read this situation in the case book, and I don't think we can use it to justify calling the batter out in the original post. In this case book play, the batter is out for interference on himself because it's an uncaught third strike situation where he committed FTI. You have to kill the play here to prevent F2 from throwing the ball to 1B.  

So the case book does not address the original post where the runner is not intending to steal until he sees the ball get knocked out of the catcher's glove. 

[noumpere]

This is a 2 year old case play so the cite may be different but it is still in the book. No mention of runners stealing.

7.3.5 SITUATION F:

With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores.

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

Right, but the batter is out because the batter "caused" D3k.  This part of the rule is the same as in OBR.

 

Under previous FED rules, if the batter strikes out for strike 3, and then hits the catcher on the follow through, there's no out if no out could be made (someone will have to find the exact case play).   Why would it be any different if the runner wasn't running at all?

[Pops]

Maven: I have a lot of respect for your input to this site. There are very few who are more knowledgeable than you. You have the ability to breakdown a poster's comments and make them see your point of view. 

 

However, I need to breakdown your comments below because I respectfully disagree with your logic on this post.

 

The reason I see rule 7.3.5 as "vague" is because it lacks verbiage to cover the situation in the OP.

While I agree that the rule prohibits the batter hindering F2 from "fielding" the ball, it also says, "which hinders .... the catcher's attempt to play on a runner."  In the OP there is no play on a runner until after the contact was made.

To my reasoning, case 7.3.5c is not a good example to apply to the OP.

You mention that there's "no infraction by the batter that is penalized only by returning runners" but you are assuming that the OP contains an infraction. I view the play as one that can be killed and therefore no infraction occurs. 

 

I hope I have kept my comments civilized enough to avoid upsetting an amazing poster.  

[noumpere]

iirc, there are a couple of plays on the nfhs site in the 2014 interps that while not exactly on point do contain phrases along the lines if "if there was no play there is no int" (or "since there was a play, there is int")

[Jimurray]

I think you could make a case either way with the interps. In the OP what if catcher was going to throw down behind the runner.

SITUATION 1: With the bases empty, the batter’s backswing causes his bat to contact the catcher, thereby dislodging the baseball from the catcher. RULING: Since there was no play that could be made, there is no interference. Play will continue. (7-3-5c)

SITUATION 2: With the runner from third attempting to steal home, the batter swings and misses and his backswing contacts the catcher, causing him to drop the ball. The action occurs with a) one out or b) two outs. RULING: This is backswing interference. In a), the runner from third is out; in b), the batter is out. (7-3-5c Penalty)

SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

SITUATION 4: R1 on first base attempts to steal second base and is about halfway to second when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher causing him to drop the baseball. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. Since the pitch was a third strike and B2's interference prevented a possible double play, both B2 and R1 are declared out. (7-3-5c Penalty)

[kstrunk]

I praise God for you guys. Very helpful discussion as I study for the FED exam.

[Jimurray]

I praise God for you guys. Very helpful discussion as I study for the FED exam.

Just make sure you are prepared to get a few questions wrong due to:

1. RTFQ

2.It is illegal, and a balk, if the pitcher turns his shoulders to check runners before he has come set, while intentionally in contact with the pitcher's plate.

a. True

b. False

Explanation

6-1-1

The test maker. In Texas the answer is true.

3. When the pitcher has started his delivery and the batter's bat hits the catcher's glove in the batter's final get ready swing is it backswing INT according to the definition? No but I answered yes due to commensense and FairPlay and got it right. Call time anyway and reset.

What do they call an umpire that passed with the lowest score? Answer, blue.

[Sut'n Blue]

Were does it say R1 has to be stealing in order for there to be play on him? Unless R1 is standing rooted to the base with no lead, there's the possibility of a play on him. Catchers often throw down to a base after a pitch to get a runner who has taken a generous lead or just simply doesn't seem to be paying attention.

[maven]

You mention that there's "no infraction by the batter that is penalized only by returning runners" but you are assuming that the OP contains an infraction. I view the play as one that can be killed and therefore no infraction occurs.

 

That's just the problem here: we do not kill it without reason. If it's not in 5-1-1, we don't kill it.

 

If there's no infraction, then you must leave the ball live, and R1 will get 2B. We certainly NEVER kill it without good reason while there is action on the bases.

 

@Jimurray posted a relevant NFHS interp:

SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

This play illustrates how FED wants this called: even though F2 has no play on R1 and attempts no throw, we're still ruling BI/FTI here. Batter out, runner returns.

 

As we all know, FED is considerably stricter about BI than OBR. It seems to me that some folks (not accusing anyone!) might be looking for a way to sneak OBR's backswing INT rule into FED. I have no problem if you prefer OBR's ruling on this play to FED's; but let's be clear that they ARE different, and that (many of us) are paid to enforce FED rules in FED games.

[noumpere]

 

SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

:

This play illustrates how FED wants this called: even though F2 has no play on R1 and attempts no throw, we're still ruling BI/FTI here. Batter out, runner returns.

 

As we all know, FED is considerably stricter about BI than OBR. It seems to me that some folks (not accusing anyone!) might be looking for a way to sneak OBR's backswing INT rule into FED. I have no problem if you prefer OBR's ruling on this play to FED's; but let's be clear that they ARE different, and that (many of us) are paid to enforce FED rules in FED games.

 

 

This ruling would be the same in FED and OBR, since the pitch was strike three.

 

FED could be clerer by adding a runner in Play 1, or by changing some of the others to be not strike 3.

[Pops]

Were does it say R1 has to be stealing in order for there to be play on him? Unless R1 is standing rooted to the base with no lead, there's the possibility of a play on him. Catchers often throw down to a base after a pitch to get a runner who has taken a generous lead or just simply doesn't seem to be paying attention.

That's the point. It doesn't say that in the rule book or case book. It's vague and needs to be made clearer by the Fed rule writers. We are all interpreting various parts of the book differently which can only lead to inconsistencies on the field. So while I agree with you, I still say that calling an automatic out on FTI (when the runner is just standing there) doesn't make sense to me.

[Pops]

 

You mention that there's "no infraction by the batter that is penalized only by returning runners" but you are assuming that the OP contains an infraction. I view the play as one that can be killed and therefore no infraction occurs.

 

That's just the problem here: we do not kill it without reason. If it's not in 5-1-1, we don't kill it.

 

If there's no infraction, then you must leave the ball live, and R1 will get 2B. We certainly NEVER kill it without good reason while there is action on the bases.

 

@Jimurray posted a relevant NFHS interp:

SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

This play illustrates how FED wants this called: even though F2 has no play on R1 and attempts no throw, we're still ruling BI/FTI here. Batter out, runner returns.

 

As we all know, FED is considerably stricter about BI than OBR. It seems to me that some folks (not accusing anyone!) might be looking for a way to sneak OBR's backswing INT rule into FED. I have no problem if you prefer OBR's ruling on this play to FED's; but let's be clear that they ARE different, and that (many of us) are paid to enforce FED rules in FED games.

 

Maven:

Thank you for your comments.

 

I don't disagree with you entirely because you are drawing a reasonable conclusion from a poorly written rule, but the first time I have to tell an OC that his batter is out for FTI in this case, I'm not going to have much to tell him to defend my position. Have you had this happen yet? Has anyone on this site called it the way the OP is written?

 

Also, let's say that the runner stands still after the batter's follow-through hits F2. Do you agree that you should call nothing except a dead ball? Or is the batter out for that as well?  

[maven]

If there is no runner or no advance on the play, then the defense has not been hindered. No hindrance = no INT, as @noumpere has already said in this thread (and that's one of my mantras too).

I don't recall seeing BI/FTI recently in a FED game, but I don't have a problem explaining to a coach that the rule is stricter than OBR. They know FED rules can be goofy.

maven