Backswing (followthrough) interference

[Welpe]

Found this in the BRD today while looking up something else:

Play 145-287: R1, 1 out, full count. R1 is moving on the pitch. B1 strikes out and
interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out R1, who slides in safely at
second. Ruling: In FED, if the catcher without the interference had a chance to
retire R1, R1 is out. But if in the judgment of the umpire the catcher had no
chance for the out, R1 returns to first. In NCAA / OBR, R1 is automatically out.

Of course there is still no actual rule support but it makes me think this still must be the intention of Fed. Interference without a play is still interference for returning runners, it just doesn't result in an out.

[maven]

Sounds like the interp that the 2015 FED rule change superseded. How old is this BRD? Does this ruling appear in prior editions?

[Welpe]

It's the 2015 BRD and I have no idea.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2015 NFHS Baseball Rules Book:

7-3-5…Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner,

PENALTY:  When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

[Welpe]

I've gone over that many times in the 2016 book. Still see nothing to return the runners without calling an out.

[maven]

7 hours ago, Welpe said:

I've gone over that many times in the 2016 book. Still see nothing to return the runners without calling an out.

We've already been over this. People who want to return runners without an out for batter INT are hanging their hats on the zombie case, 8.4.2K.

[Welpe]

I agree, my response was to Senor Azul.

[Jimurray]

On 2/6/2016 at 7:43 AM, maven said:

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8.4.2 K is an old case, superseded by the new rule, that we should expect to go away soon.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.

I  think 8.4.2.K is still applicable. When a batter interefers on strike three the rule allows you to get 2 outs if you judge the runner could have been put out. But if not, you still have interference and runners return TOI.

[maven]

18 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I  think 8.4.2.K is still applicable. When a batter interefers on strike three the rule allows you to get 2 outs if you judge the runner could have been put out. But if not, you still have interference and runners return TOI.

Although I appreciate your effort to make the FED case play work consistently with the rule, the highlighted bit is (a) incoherent, and (b) not a penalty provided by rule (it appears ONLY in the zombie case you reference).

Regarding the incoherence: if I judge that the runner could not have been put out, then how has the defense been hindered? No hindrance = no INT, no exceptions. If I judge that the runner could not have been put out, then there is no infraction, and I cannot properly impose ANY penalty.

The pro rule distinguishes 2 kinds of hindrance and applies 2 correspondingly distinct penalties. FED does not distinguish kinds of hindrance and thus is not in a position to impose 2 distinct penalties.

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, maven said:

Although I appreciate your effort to make the FED case play work consistently with the rule, the highlighted bit is (a) incoherent, and (b) not a penalty provided by rule (it appears ONLY in the zombie case you reference).

Regarding the incoherence: if I judge that the runner could not have been put out, then how has the defense been hindered? No hindrance = no INT, no exceptions. If I judge that the runner could not have been put out, then there is no infraction, and I cannot properly impose ANY penalty.

The pro rule distinguishes 2 kinds of hindrance and applies 2 correspondingly distinct penalties. FED does not distinguish kinds of hindrance and thus is not in a position to impose 2 distinct penalties.

FED addressed the batters backswing swing interfering in 2014. They called it backswing and in 2015 revised it to "follow-through".

This is a 2014 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) "

I am wrong about TOI though. The rule requires return TOP. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

FED addressed the batters backswing swing interfering in 2014. They called it backswing and in 2015 revised it to "follow-through".

This is a 2014 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) "

I am wrong about TOI though. The rule requires return TOP. 

Right. And in 2015, when the 7-3-5c PENALTY changed, this ruling died an overdue death.

That's why I've been calling the ruling in 8.4.2K a zombie case. It's dead, but still running around creating havoc.

[Jimurray]

35 minutes ago, maven said:

Right. And in 2015, when the 7-3-5c PENALTY changed, this ruling died an overdue death.

That's why I've been calling the ruling in 8.4.2K a zombie case. It's dead, but still running around creating havoc.

I don't see any change in wording in the Penalty. The only change was from "backswing" to "follow-through" to clarify that they were addressing the follow through swing when they added "back swing" in 2014. 

[ALStripes17]

I don't see any change in wording in the Penalty. The only change was from "backswing" to "follow-through" to clarify that they were addressing the follow through swing when they added "back swing" in 2014. 

It didn't change. The case book is as authoritative as the rule book.

However, the only thought I have is that the case play is a unicorn IMO. It should never happen because if the batter is interfering by rule, he has hindered a potential play and someone has to be out for it (someone has to go to jail).

I only envision an umpire sending a runner back to 1B in this kind of scenario if he calls batter interference prematurely and tries to make everyone happy by not calling the runner out (please the offense) and not allowing the SB (please the defense).

Any umpire worth their salt won't call batter INT here unless interference with the play (potential play) actually exists.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

It didn't change. The case book is as authoritative as the rule book.

However, the only thought I have is that the case play is a unicorn IMO. It should never happen because if the batter is interfering by rule, he has hindered a potential play and someone has to be out for it (someone has to go to jail).

I only envision an umpire sending a runner back to 1B in this kind of scenario if he calls batter interference prematurely and tries to make everyone happy by not calling the runner out (please the offense) and not allowing the SB (please the defense).

Any umpire worth their salt won't call batter INT here unless interference with the play (potential play) actually exists.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Interestingly, OBR doesn't call INT on backswing but they do kill the ball.

[ALStripes17]

Interestingly, OBR doesn't call INT on backswing but they do kill the ball.

I like that caveat thrown in there honestly. Backswings (in OBR sense) are harder to control IMO and penalizing the offense for the batter making an efforted swing is lame.

Granted, the offense shouldn't gain an advantage on it either. Hence the runner return in those codes.

Seeing as FED groups all that junk together in the moment of a pitch, we get to work with wet sand to make a sandcastle

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Welpe]

Interestingly, OBR doesn't call INT on backswing but they do kill the ball.

Also known as backswing or weak interference.

[berns_97]

I had something similar to this. Look at the 2016 NFHS rule book on page 44, under number 5 and in bold (penalty) and describes the situation in the 3rd or 4th sentence 

[Senor Azul]

The play that Mr. Welpe posted on Tuesday and appears at the top of this page (I wish the posts were numbered like before) also appears in the 2014 BRD. I am confused. Does that somehow disqualify it and we should disregard it? Has it been declared a zombie? Anyway, it was in section 286 in 2014 and here is the interpretation that goes with the play:

From the 2014 BRD:

Section 286  Interference by: Batter: w/Catcher: Throw to: Base: Batter Retired

Fed: 1. When a retired batter interferes with the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, if the umpire believes the runner would have been out without the interference: PENALTY: The umpire will declare out the runner on whom the defense was playing. Other runners return TOP. (Website 2011, #4)  2.  If the umpire judges the catcher had no chance for an out, interference or no: PENALTY:  Runners return TOP. (7-3-5 Pen; 7.3.5c; 8.4.2k; Website 2011, #5)

 

[Jimurray]

19 hours ago, Welpe said:

Also known as backswing or weak interference.

The interesting part is that if an OBR catcher is hit by a follow-through the ball can be dead right away if no throw is attempted. It would seem that in FED, if we lean toward protecting the catcher, calling the INT right away would be appropriate, even if no play was attempted, and then use the rule and current caseplays to sort out the sit.

[Welpe]

It's easier to kill the ball right away if you're just "resetting" everyone. That is perhaps an unintended consequence of the Fed rule in raising the bar for what follow through interference is they are reducing the frequency in when it is called.

[BT_Blue]

I love that NFHS, an association that notoriously has treated us as idiots by taking all the judgement possible out of the rules they could, now wants us to judge if a catcher had a play or not on a runner with all the contact and crap happening in our area?

Thanks a lot for all the help NFHS.

[maven]

5 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

I love that NFHS, an association that notoriously has treated us as idiots by taking all the judgement possible out of the rules they could, now wants us to judge if a catcher had a play or not on a runner with all the contact and crap happening in our area?

Thanks a lot for all the help NFHS.

1. FED, like every other rules-making body, has a legitimate interest in promoting consistency across the game, throughout the country, at every level. Since they have thousands more umpires to address than NCAA, OBR, or even Little League™, one of the ways they can promote consistency is by reducing the amount of judgment (and therefore training, experience, and skill) required to make a given call. This approach is no slight to the many well-trained, knowledgeable, and experienced umpires who work FED games.
2. Judging whether F2 had a play is not terribly difficult (compared, say, to a straight steal of home). If he makes a throw, then he had a play. If he's prevented by contact from making a throw, then he had a play. If we're not sure, then he had a play. OTOH, if R1 is standing on 2B before he gloves the pitch, then he had no play.

In HS baseball, I have never seen batter INT (or contact otherwise sufficient to rule batter INT) where F2 has no play. When R1 leaves that early, F1 steps off and plays on him directly (or balks, or whatever). So again, a play that never happens is pretty easy to officiate.

[Sayhey]

I'm more confused now than when I started reading these posts. Is follow through interference an automatic out because Feds. Stress safety? Or does the follow through interference need to actually interfere with the catcher throwing( making a play)? The example is nonsense. A waste of time because it's never going to happen. Feds. Suck. If the defense is so bad that R-1 is on second base when the interference occurs why does the runner go back? R-1 attained 2nd base by merit. I apologize for being so dense. I read the posts and I'm still struggling. I have the official rule memorized and have used it in summer ball. I got a 94 without studying but I think I missed this question. I think I thought it was an automatic out because of safety concerns. Thanks for the help. Again, my apologies for being dense. 

[johnnyg08]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:05 PM, Jimurray said:

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)"

Nice work @Jimurray