Follow-Through Interference Scenario

[Pops]

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

Good points.  Then from a coaching point of view, they should probably teach their players not to move when they see a potential FTI call. No movement, no hindrance, no INT. 

[GreyhoundAggie]

 

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.

 

I got this questions wrong because the definition of backswing INT says before the time of the pitch. I think the question is worded poorly.

[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.

I got this questions wrong because the definition of backswing INT says before the time of the pitch. I think the question is worded poorly. Worded poorly and/or they want to extend the backswing protection to situations like that. A caseplay or interp would work better. In real life you probably would call time but that question should not be on the test if they want the answer to be yes.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I agree. I would kill the play as well. I was just going by the letter of the law. I thought it was one of their specifically worded trick questions since they love to do that.

[grayhawk]

Interesting part of the OP for me is that if R1 doesn't advance, we have nothing. If he advances, we have follow through interference and batter out. There's something inherently wrong with that.

[maven]

Interesting part of the OP for me is that if R1 doesn't advance, we have nothing. If he advances, we have follow through interference and batter out. There's something inherently wrong with that.

 

Somebody in the thread advocated killing it and sending R1 back. There's no provision in the rule to do that, BUT there IS a moment when you can kill it.

 

If R1 is not off with the pitch, then kill it when the batter hits F2. That will prevent R1 taking off in response, which will prevent the batter's action from constituting a hindrance, which will prevent his act from being interference. We're not improperly "sending R1 back" in that case, since he never left 1B. And this approach prevents the "inherently wrong" problem that Steve points out.

 

If R1 is off with the pitch, then we have hindrance and FTI/BI, where the hindrance is evident to all and uncontroversial. Penalize accordingly.

[grayhawk]

Interesting part of the OP for me is that if R1 doesn't advance, we have nothing. If he advances, we have follow through interference and batter out. There's something inherently wrong with that.

Somebody in the thread advocated killing it and sending R1 back. There's no provision in the rule to do that, BUT there IS a moment when you can kill it.

If R1 is not off with the pitch, then kill it when the batter hits F2. That will prevent R1 taking off in response, which will prevent the batter's action from constituting a hindrance, which will prevent his act from being interference. We're not improperly "sending R1 back" in that case, since he never left 1B. And this approach prevents the "inherently wrong" problem that Steve points out.

If R1 is off with the pitch, then we have hindrance and FTI/BI, where the hindrance is evident to all and uncontroversial. Penalize accordingly.

Not a bad solution, but let's say you kill it, R1 takes off anyway and F2 recovers and throws out R1. Since BI is not supposed to be immediately dead, you've now taken an out away from the defense.

[maven]

Not a bad solution, but let's say you kill it, R1 takes off anyway and F2 recovers and throws out R1. Since BI is not supposed to be immediately dead, you've now taken an out away from the defense.

Kill it harder.