Backswing Interference.....?

[goindeep]

Batter swings and pops the ball straight up, after contact with the ball he hits the catcher on his backswing in the shoulder and head....catcher is unable to make a play on the ball....do we have anything?

 

[scrounge]

Indeed we do....out.

[noumpere]

Almost exactly from case 7.3.5F (in the case, the ball was hit, not F2 -- that doesn't change anything).

[maven]

48 minutes ago, goindeep said:

Batter swings and pops the ball straight up, after contact with the ball he hits the catcher on his backswing in the shoulder and head....catcher is unable to make a play on the ball....do we have anything?

 

That's interference: 8-4-2g.

[maven]

5 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Almost exactly from case 7.3.5F (in the case, the ball was hit, not F2 -- that doesn't change anything).

I think it does change the case: this is interference with a fielder in his initial attempt to field a batted ball, and so it is runner INT.

In 7.3.5F, we have a batter hindering F2's play at the plate after missing the pitch, and so batter INT.

It could make a difference: on the pop-up, had another runner been stealing, so the INT prevented a double play, we could get 2 outs. We can't get 2 outs for batter INT.

[catsbackr]

I think this is follow through interference, not backswing interference.

[ALStripes17]

I think it does change the case: this is interference with a fielder in his initial attempt to field a batted ball, and so it is runner INT.

In 7.3.5F, we have a batter hindering F2's play at the plate after missing the pitch, and so batter INT.

It could make a difference: on the pop-up, had another runner been stealing, so the INT prevented a double play, we could get 2 outs. We can't get 2 outs for batter INT.

7.3.5 Situation C is close as well.

But I do see what you are saying here.

The issue is FED does set precedent that the batter is still liable for Batter INT even after he becomes a BR. And a lot of precedent for anything under the swing falls into Batter INT category

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[goindeep]

The situations you are citing are not helping me right now if you dont tell me what is happening...rule book/case book is not with me and please clarify from which so that I may read it as well....thank you so far for the help

 

[ALStripes17]

The situations you are citing are not helping me right now if you dont tell me what is happening...rule book/case book is not with me and please clarify from which so that I may read it as well....thank you so far for the help

 

Sometimes we have the cites but it's more difficult to copy/paste

Also, periods are used for case book cites... Hyphens for rule book cites

Context of 'Situation X' should also provide hint that those are from the case book

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

4 minutes ago, goindeep said:

rule book/case book is not with me and please clarify from which

 

Rules have dashes; cases have dots.

 

And, I missed that it was a batted ball -- this in INT in all codes.

[maven]

10 minutes ago, goindeep said:

The situations you are citing are not helping me right now if you dont tell me what is happening...rule book/case book is not with me and please clarify from which so that I may read it as well....thank you so far for the help

 

8-4-2g: "Any runner is out when...he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball."

[goindeep]

very good...understanding better now. thank you gentlemen. 

[stkjock]

This situation just happened in the game 3 of the CWS - swinging thrid strike, bat beans F2 HARD, he immediately drops to the ground, PU immediately calls "He's out, He's out!"

 

edit - uncaught third strike   

 

F2 out of game.... 

[grayhawk]

I saw it too. Good call.

By the way, the pitch skipped in the dirt, and the batter was called out for the backswing interference.

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I saw it too. Good call.

 

By the way, the pitch skipped in the dirt, and the batter was called out for the backswing interference.

I didn't see it, but can this be right? It was allegedly strike 3.

[grayhawk]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

I didn't see it, but can this be right? It was allegedly strike 3.

It was strike 3, but the pitch skipped in the dirt and the batter ran to first.  PU called him out without a throw while F2 was lying on the ground.

[maven]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

It was strike 3, but the pitch skipped in the dirt and the batter ran to first.  PU called him out without a throw while F2 was lying on the ground.

So he was out for strike 3, and couldn't advance because the ball became dead on the backswing INT (in that regard akin a swinging K with HBP).

Gotcha. But backswing INT doesn't yield an out in NCAA, IINM.

[grayhawk]

37 minutes ago, maven said:

So he was out for strike 3, and couldn't advance because the ball became dead on the backswing INT (in that regard akin a swinging K with HBP).

Gotcha. But backswing INT doesn't yield an out in NCAA, IINM.

That's more technically correct than saying he was out for backswing interference.  I would guess the scorebook simply reflects a strikeout.

[maven]

21 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

more technically correct

Hey, that's my middle name!

[stkjock]

I took the call was made as the interference caused F2 to be unable to make a play as a result of nearly being KO'd 

 

i see see know I left the "untaught thrid strike" out of my post.  

[VolUmp]

Backswing INT = before the batter has swung.

Follow-through INT = after the batter has swung.

Very different rulings.

FED has spent two years trying to correct this distinction since they screwed it up when it was introduced.

[ALStripes17]

Backswing INT = before the batter has swung.

Follow-through INT = after the batter has swung.

Very different rulings.

FED has spent two years trying to correct this distinction since they screwed it up when it was introduced.

Just over 5 1/2 months.

And where have you seen FED try to correct it? Because it's still the same definitions as when it came out 2(3?) Years ago.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk