incredible dropped 3rd strike situation

[grozzly]

yes, everything can happen in baseball.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCcq4Dejk0&feature=youtu.be

[maven]

That's an awesome clip. I did not see everything until the replay. Here's what I see:

1. The batter swung at the pitch and missed for strike 3.
2. The pitch bounced off F2's mitt into the air.
3. The batter's follow-through contacted the ball and knocked it away from F2.
4. The BR advanced to 1B as F2 chased the loose ball.

How are we ruling on that, gang? Different in FED and OBR?

[ALStripes17]

That's an awesome clip. I did not see everything until the replay. Here's what I see:

1. The batter swung at the pitch and missed for strike 3.
2. The pitch bounced off F2's mitt into the air.
3. The batter's follow-through contacted the ball and knocked it away from F2.
4. The BR advanced to 1B as F2 chased the loose ball.

How are we ruling on that, gang? Different in FED and OBR?

In FED I would have INT based on 7.3.5 Situation F. We could make that apply.

OBR is this live?

What a video!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[basejester]

I stand corrected.  Deleted.

 

[grozzly]

first, i would have let the batter try to reach first base. BUT, and it's in this kind of situation that you realize that reading the rules as often as possible is really necessary....

OBR 6.06 (c) comments: "if the batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionnally hits the catcher OR THE BALL in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shalled be called a strike only (not interference). The ball is dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play"

There is this one too...: 7.09 (a): "it's interference by a batter (or runner) when, after a 3rd strike, he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball"

 

Which one ?? 

 

 

[noumpere]

This is too easy -- batter(runner) is out; no one else can advance.  All codes.

 

No double play.  No triple play.  JUst to try to cover all the bases.

[Kevin_K]

I just spoke with a fellow umpire about this not one hour ago.

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.

That's what great about this game. Once you think you have seen it all, you get a chance to learn something else.

[maven]

1 hour ago, grozzly said:

first, i would have let the batter try to reach first base. BUT, and it's in this kind of situation that you realize that reading the rules as often as possible is really necessary....

OBR 6.06 (c) comments: "if the batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionnally hits the catcher OR THE BALL in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shalled be called a strike only (not interference). The ball is dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play"

There is this one too...: 7.09 (a): "it's interference by a batter (or runner) when, after a 3rd strike, he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball"

 

Which one ?? 

 

 

For this play, the outcome is (extensionally) identical: if you rule BR INT, then the ball is dead, the BR is out for his INT, and other runners return.

If you rule "backswing" INT, then the ball is dead, the batter is out on strike 3, and other runners return.

That said, this is BR INT in OBR, and in other situations that might matter.

[ricka56]

I'm not disputing B out by rule, but that's an undeserving bailout this rule gives F2.
F2 had his chance, screwed the pooch and comes out smelling like a rose.. 

[maven]

3 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

I'm not disputing B out by rule, but that's an undeserving bailout this rule gives F2.
F2 had his chance, screwed the pooch and comes out smelling like a rose.. 

For OBR at least, the umpire must judge whether the BR "clearly hindered" F2's attempt to field the ball. Merely contacting the ball is not sufficient to rule INT: had the BR hit the ball straight down where F2 could field it and play on him, then I've got nothing, play on.

As for "smelling like a rose," I don't think anyone emerges cleanly from this play. The batter had his chance to hit the pitch and missed. So he screwed the pooch, struck out, and should be out.

F2 failed to catch it, so he screwed the pooch, and in such circumstances the BR has a chance to advance, and the defense must further play on him to retire him.

But then the BR committed a further screwing of the pooch, contacting the ball and so hindering F2's ability to play on him. That's INT, and an out.

The batter screwed up more, and more often, than F2.

[kylehutson]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

For OBR at least, the umpire must judge whether the BR "clearly hindered" F2's attempt to field the ball. Merely contacting the ball is not sufficient to rule INT: had the BR hit the ball straight down where F2 could field it and play on him, then I've got nothing, play on.

As for "smelling like a rose," I don't think anyone emerges cleanly from this play. The batter had his chance to hit the pitch and missed. So he screwed the pooch, struck out, and should be out.

F2 failed to catch it, so he screwed the pooch, and in such circumstances the BR has a chance to advance, and the defense must further play on him to retire him.

But then the BR committed a further screwing of the pooch, contacting the ball and so hindering F2's ability to play on him. That's INT, and an out.

The batter screwed up more, and more often, than F2.

Poor little Fifi.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, maven said:

That's an awesome clip. I did not see everything until the replay. Here's what I see:

1. The batter swung at the pitch and missed for strike 3.
2. The pitch bounced off F2's mitt into the air.
3. The batter's follow-through contacted the ball and knocked it away from F2.
4. The BR advanced to 1B as F2 chased the loose ball.

How are we ruling on that, gang? Different in FED and OBR?

What if the swing tipped the pitch, which might have actually happened? Foul ball or INT?

[stkjock]

I'm Sure many have seen this, I could only find a single reference to it on the site, a thread four years ago. 

Even crazier I think than the OP

 

Tjis 

[ricka56]

13 hours ago, maven said:

But then the BR committed a further screwing of the pooch, contacting the ball and so hindering F2's ability to play on him. That's INT, and an out.

I'll quibble lightly with this part. Every healthy swinging batter has a follow-through (even the less healthy swingers have one). If F2 deflects the pitch into the batter's box and it hits the bat on the follow-through, that's just bad luck on the batter because F2 sent the ball his way. It could happen to any batter.

[Jimurray]

6 hours ago, maven said:

For this play, the outcome is (extensionally) identical: if you rule BR INT, then the ball is dead, the BR is out for his INT, and other runners return.

If you rule "backswing" INT, then the ball is dead, the batter is out on strike 3, and other runners return.

That said, this is BR INT in OBR, and in other situations that might matter.

Why, after reading @grozzly S cite would you say that this is BR INT instead of backswing interference. Is it because the pitch touched the catcher's mitt?

[Richvee]

FED logic......If F2 doesn't catch strike 3 and BR accidentally kicks the ball, it's play on. If his bat accidentally  touches the ball on the backswing, it's his fault and he's out.

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.

8.4.1 SITUATION I:

B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. The ball ricochets from F2’s mitt and rolls several feet down the first-base line in fair territory. As F2 goes for the ball, B1 accidently kicks or steps on the ball.

RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands.

[Thunderheads]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

FED logic......If F2 doesn't catch strike 3 and BR accidentally kicks the ball, it's play on. If his bat accidentally  touches the ball on the backswing, it's his fault and he's out.

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.

8.4.1 SITUATION I:

B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. The ball ricochets from F2’s mitt and rolls several feet down the first-base line in fair territory. As F2 goes for the ball, B1 accidently kicks or steps on the ball.

RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands.

Ahhhh ........... FED!  

[ricka56]

7-3-5c says that follow-through interference is an out if it hinders...catcher's attempt to play on a runner. 

Q. If no runners were advancing on the pitch, and this kind of bat/ball contact happens (not K3) and then runners advance on the loose ball, is the batter out (runners return) or is it just runners return since at the time of the bat/ball contact, there was no play that was hindered ?

if the latter, what rule can you cite that returns the runner ?  

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

FED logic......If F2 doesn't catch strike 3 and BR accidentally kicks the ball, it's play on. If his bat accidentally  touches the ball on the backswing, it's his fault and he's out.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Ahhhh ........... FED!  

OBR and NCAA would have the same logic (except I think OBR has made it a little more likely to get an out on the "kicked ball" scenario jus tin the past year or so)

[noumpere]

34 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

7-3-5c says that follow-through interference is an out if it hinders...catcher's attempt to play on a runner. 

Q. If no runners were advancing on the pitch, and this kind of bat/ball contact happens (not K3) and then runners advance on the loose ball, is the batter out (runners return) or is it just runners return since at the time of the bat/ball contact, there was no play that was hindered ?

if the latter, what rule can you cite that returns the runner ?  

Well, there's this (posted before the word "backswing" was changed to "follow-through" but otherwise still valid):

 

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)

 

 

[ricka56]

37 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Well, there's this (posted before the word "backswing" was changed to "follow-through" but otherwise still valid):

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)

I don't think this CB play is analogous to what I described (runners on/not K3). With runners on there is always the possibility that a play could be made. And with runners now advancing, there is definitely the possibility of a play. What do we rule?   

The problem with using 7-3-5c is that there isn't a no out/runners return option. 

[maven]

First, I don't get the FED bashing in the OP: it's the same ruling in all codes, and for the same reason.

Second, if this happens on strike 1 with runners who were not advancing on the pitch, for FED we have a weird situation that we have discussed before. If the batter's follow-through knocks the ball away from F2, and then runners who were not stealing begin to advance, NOW the batter has hindered F2's play. Batter INT, batter out, runners return. Had the runners stayed put, there would be no hindrance, and thus no INT. Play on.

We could, of course, kill it before the runners take off (and so in effect treat it like OBR "backswing" INT), but that's not an "approved" mechanic.

[goody14]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

FED logic......If F2 doesn't catch strike 3 and BR accidentally kicks the ball, it's play on. If his bat accidentally  touches the ball on the backswing, it's his fault and he's out.

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.

8.4.1 SITUATION I:

B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. The ball ricochets from F2’s mitt and rolls several feet down the first-base line in fair territory. As F2 goes for the ball, B1 accidently kicks or steps on the ball.

RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire, B1 did not intentionally interfere, then the ball remains alive and the play stands.

I think a small but significant difference in these case plays is that in 7.3.5 F (and the video) the catcher has not failed to make the catch...yet. The ball is still in flight.

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

15 hours ago, Jimurray said:

What if the swing tipped the pitch, which might have actually happened? Foul ball or INT?

That an interesting question. The ball went directly back to the catcher's mitt, therefore he can still catch the ball for the out. I think you still have INT because the opportunity to make the out was interefered with.

[maven]

3 minutes ago, goody14 said:

I think a small but significant difference in these case plays is that in 7.3.5 F (and the video) the catcher has not failed to make the catch...yet. The ball is still in flight.

Why significant? It's not going to affect the ruling in any code, right?