Backswing (followthrough) interference

[Welpe]

I'm more interested in a Fed ruling on this but welcome OBR as well.

R1 and one out. 2-2 count on the batter.

R1 gets a big jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when the batter swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow through strikes the catcher.

Since F2 had no play on R1 should this still be interference? My reading of the Fed rules says it shouldn't, or at least that R1 should not be out since there wasn't a possible play. Keeping that in mind, do we send the runner back? That's the sticking point to me on this situation and I can't seem to piece it together.

[maven]

FED ruling:

If we judge that F2 had absolutely no possible play prior to the contact, then he could not possibly be hindered by the contact. No hindrance = no INT. Play on.

Unless R1 is standing on 2B well prior to the contact, I'm probably making the expected call, that F2 had a possible play. Runners do dumb things, and I'm giving the defense every benefit of the doubt.

If we judge that F2 might have had any possible opportunity to throw down, then this is BI in FED ("followthrough INT" is one kind of BI in FED). If F2's first throw does not retire a runner (or there's no throw), the ball is dead, the batter is out, and runners return. 7-3-5c

OBR ruling:

Again, no hindrance = no INT, but the expected call here is "backswing" or "weak" INT: if F2's first throw does not retire a runner (or there's no throw), the ball is dead, and runners return. Nobody is out. 6.03(a)(3) Comment/6.06(c) Comment

[Welpe]

Thanks maven.

That is the same ruling I'd come up with in both codes. This question came from our association test (I have no idea if it is the same as NFHS Part I but I think it might be) and the correct answer is marked as the batter is out for strike three and R1 is returned to first.

I would think that for Fed we'd either get the one out for the strikeout and leave R1 at second if we judge no interference. Otherwise, we'd get two outs, one for the strike out and then R1 out for the interference.

[Welpe]

I just realized this question came from Part I of the NFHS exam so no need to further obscure it. Here's the actual question. C is supposed to be the correct answer but I'm trying to find the rule support for sending R1 back without calling him out.

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.

A. Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference.

B. B2 is guilty of interference.  R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.

C. Since F2 had no possible play on R1, B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to first base.

D. B2 is guilty of interference.  Both B2 and R1 are declared out.

[maven]

I think there used to be a case play like that. I can't find it in the 2016 book. Perhaps they removed it because it's wrong.

Either B2 interfered, or he didn't. If he did, then somebody's out for that INT; otherwise, play on. There's no basis for sending R1 back (well, other than a case play that says/said you can do that).

[Welpe]

Thank you for the confirmation. Glad to know I'm not going crazy -  regarding this particular play anyways.

[ElkOil]

51 minutes ago, Welpe said:

Thanks maven.

That is the same ruling I'd come up with in both codes. This question came from our association test (I have no idea if it is the same as NFHS Part I but I think it might be) and the correct answer is marked as the batter is out for strike three and R1 is returned to first.

I would think that for Fed we'd either get the one out for the strikeout and leave R1 at second if we judge no interference. Otherwise, we'd get two outs, one for the strike out and then R1 out for the interference.

I don't think there's an instance in this example where you'd get two outs if there's INT. If INT occurs, the ball is dead and the interferer is declared out and the runner returns. If there's no INT, as @maven said, play on. This is different with a runner on 3B who was trying to score, though.

[Jimurray]

Just now, Welpe said:

Thank you for the confirmation. Glad to know I'm not going crazy -  regarding this particular play anyways.

You're not crazy, FED is:

"2014 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)

2011 SITUATION 4: With R2 on first base and one out, B3 swings and misses on a 1-2 fastball for strike three. R2 was stealing on the pitch and B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher’s ability to throw to second base. At the time of the interference, R2 was just over half way to second from first. RULING: In the umpire’s judgment, B3’s interference prevented the catcher from possibly throwing out R2 at second base. B3 is out for strike three and R2 is declared out because of B3’s interference. The half-inning is over. (7-3-5c Penalty)

2011 SITUATION 5: With one out, R2 gets a great jump at first base and is just a couple of feet from second base when B3 strikes out. B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher, who drops the ball and cannot throw to second base. RULING: The ball is declared dead when play is no longer possible. B3 is out on strikes for out No. 2. Since the catcher had no possible play on R2 (being so close to second base at the time of the interference), R2 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)"

[Welpe]

So Fed is saying that if there's no possible play on the runner, treat it like OBR weak interference and send him back. Super.

[maven]

17 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

I don't think there's an instance in this example where you'd get two outs if there's INT. If INT occurs, the ball is dead and the interferer is declared out and the runner returns. If there's no INT, as @maven said, play on. This is different with a runner on 3B who was trying to score, though.

LC: you appear to get 2 outs for BI because the batter is out on strike 3 and then interferes. The runner is then out for the batter's INT.

7 minutes ago, Welpe said:

So Fed is saying that if there's no possible play on the runner, treat it like OBR weak interference and send him back. Super.

I'm going to say that these interps were superseded by the 2015 rule change on followthrough INT, which clarified that "followthrough INT" is just a version of BI, specified explicitly that the penalty is an out, and added a couple case plays to the book.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, maven said:

LC: you appear to get 2 outs for BI because the batter is out on strike 3 and then interferes. The runner is then out for the batter's INT.

I'm going to say that these interps were superseded by the 2015 rule change on followthrough INT, which clarified that "followthrough INT" is just a version of BI, specified explicitly that the penalty is an out, and added a couple case plays to the book.

I think you are correct. 7.3.5 C used to return R1 to 1B. That caseplay has disappeared and 2016 7.3.5 C is unrelated.

[Cav]

On NFHS follow-through contact, do we not have to judge whether or not the contact interfered with F2's attempt to play on a runner? (2-21-4)  Apathy or ignorance on F2's part should not get an interference call, and lacking interference there would be no dead ball and no need to return runners to the last base at TOI.  F2 doesn't need to make a throw, but he does need to convince me and my fans that he was attempting a play.        

Therein lies the conflict I have with the OP and case play 2014 Sit. 3 that Jimurray graciously provided.  Neither mention any action by F2; the contact was presumed to be interference.

 

 

[Richvee]

I think we're making the FED rule harder than it needs to be. First thing to remember is, in FED there is absolutely no difference between batter INT where the batter swings and falls across the plate or into F2, and follow through INT.  In FED these are the same thing. It's all BI.

In FED, the batter is out and runner returns when there's BI and R1 is stealing. If it's strike three, and then BI, unless the stealing runner is literally standing on second base before the pitch reaches the plate,*  the runner is out for the batter's INT. Again, for FED, follow through, falling over the plate,... all the same.

* My interp. FED says "Unless the catcher doesn't have a play on the runner"

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Cav said:

On NFHS follow-through contact, do we not have to judge whether or not the contact interfered with F2's attempt to play on a runner? (2-21-4)  Apathy or ignorance on F2's part should not get an interference call, and lacking interference there would be no dead ball and no need to return runners to the last base at TOI.  F2 doesn't need to make a throw, but he does need to convince me and my fans that he was attempting a play.        

Therein lies the conflict I have with the OP and case play 2014 Sit. 3 that Jimurray graciously provided.  Neither mention any action by F2; the contact was presumed to be interference.

 

 

Sure he needs to make some kind of attempt to throw. If he never gets out of his crouch and the batter steps across the plate, we're not getting INT. I got to see some type of effort to make a throw.

[maven]

Summary of the thread so far:

1. Does any FED rule allow an umpire to penalize followthrough INT and NOT get an out for it (that is, the only penalty is returning the runner)?
2. Answer: no. Post-2015 rule change defining followthrough INT as a version of batter INT clarified that, if we penalize batter INT, then somebody is out for it (sometimes the batter, sometimes the runner stealing home, sometimes the runner being played on in case the batter has struck out).

There is no question that sometimes the batter contacts F2 without it constituting INT, that sometimes we don't enforce the batter INT penalty (first throw retires a runner), etc. etc. Those tangential issues could be raised in another thread.

[ALStripes17]

Summary of the thread so far:

1. Does any FED rule allow an umpire to penalize followthrough INT and NOT get an out for it (that is, the only penalty is returning the runner)?
2. Answer: no. Post-2015 rule change defining followthrough INT as a version of batter INT clarified that, if we penalize batter INT, then somebody is out for it (sometimes the batter, sometimes the runner stealing home, sometimes the runner being played on in case the batter has struck out).

There is no question that sometimes the batter contacts F2 without it constituting INT, that sometimes we don't enforce the batter INT penalty (first throw retires a runner), etc. etc. Those tangential issues could be raised in another thread.

So what do we make of 8.4.2 Situation K?

Only brought up because it is a case occurrence. Definitely don't agree with it. If BI is called, someone is going to be out for the BI specifically IMO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Welpe]

Maven summarized my thoughts well and I think the case you brought up, ALStripes, is the nexus of my question.

Through interpretation, Fed is adding a type of OBR style weak interference if there is no possible play on the runner. I've said this before about other sports and other rules, but again we have an interpretation without rule support (reminds me of the backcourt interp that is universally hated by basketball officials).

[NorthTexasUmp]

6 minutes ago, Welpe said:

Maven summarized my thoughts well and I think the case you brought up, ALStripes, is the nexus of my question.

Through interpretation, Fed is adding a type of OBR style weak interference if there is no possible play on the runner. I've said this before about other sports and other rules, but again we have an interpretation without rule support (reminds me of the backcourt interp that is universally hated by basketball officials).

Here's my thought. Once we judge BI, the batter is going to be out and the runner returns. IF the batter is out on strikes, then we CAN get the runner if a play was possible. If not (runner already on the base), we still penalize the offense (Fed safety rule) by sending the runner back.

Is that what we are all saying?

[Richvee]

14 minutes ago, NorthTexasUmp said:

Here's my thought. Once we judge BI, the batter is going to be out and the runner returns. IF the batter is out on strikes, then we CAN get the runner if a play was possible. If not (runner already on the base), we still penalize the offense (Fed safety rule) by sending the runner back.

Is that what we are all saying?

yup . At least that's what I'm saying

And I'm say, as far as I'm concerned, on K3, the runner better be standing on 2nd (or 3rd) before F2 even has the ball or else I'm calling him out. 

[Welpe]

Rich, I don't mind a practical treatment of the play similar to what you suggest. In reality, there very rarely will be a situation where the runner gets that good of a jump that I can say there was no potential play on him. But I'm trying to explore the rules behind supporting the action of sending a runner back without calling him out in this situation. In my reading of the rules, absent the case play, I don't see a way to do it.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Welpe said:

Rich, I don't mind a practical treatment of the play similar to what you suggest. In reality, there very rarely will be a situation where the runner gets that good of a jump that I can say there was no potential play on him. But I'm trying to explore the rules behind supporting the action of sending a runner back without calling him out in this situation. In my reading of the rules, absent the case play, I don't see a way to do it.

Caseplays are extensions of the rules.  That's support enough. 

[Welpe]

I understand that a case play has the same authority as the rule, which is why I worded my statement the way I did. What I take issue with is the making of additional rules in the case plays themselves without corroborating support in the actual rulebook. As we all know, cases are taken out of the case book all the time and in many of those situations, it leaves us to figure out whether that case should still apply or not. This is a problem with Fed in general across at least three of their sports that I work.

[maven]

8.4.2K will soon die the same death as 2014 SITUATION 3. FED is slow to fix the case book: old timers might recall how long it took to purge every instance of the old "automatic appeal." When a rule contradicts a case, the rule wins.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 NFHS Baseball Case Book:

7.3.5 Situation J:  With R1, B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike one. His follow-through hits the catcher while he is attempting to throw out advancing R1. RULING:  B2 is out, and R1 is returned to first base.

8.4.2 Situation K:  With R3 and R1 and no one out, R1 attempts to steal second base. The pitch to the batter is strike three. As F2 attempts to throw out R1, the batter interferes. The ball goes into the outfield and R3 scores. RULING: The batter is out because of strike three. R3 returns to third base because that is the base he occupied at the time of the interference. If the umpires judge R1 would have been out on the steal had the interference not occurred, R1 will be declared out. If the umpires judge he would not have been out had the interference not occurred, R1 will be returned to first base.

[maven]

Thank you, Mr. Blue.

7.3.5 J is a case newly added in 2015 after the rule change. It reflects a proper application of the new rule.

8.4.2 K is an old case, superseded by the new rule, that we should expect to go away soon. In the meantime, rule 7-3-5c clearly applies the usual batter INT penalty to followthrough INT, and it provides adequate justification for ignoring the ruling in 8.4.2K (well, the last sentence anyway).

I will add that the play in 8.4.2 K could be tricky to officiate: we need to know whether R3 is also stealing, or whether he is holding to see whether F2 throws down. If he's stealing, then HE needs to be called out for the batter's INT (whether strike 3 or no).

We might worry that this could be tricky for either umpire to see, but unless he's well down the line when the INT occurs, we should rule as indicated in the case play (except for the last sentence). Since that penalty is so severe, let's make sure it's obvious that R3 was stealing before we enforce that provision.