FOLLOW THROUGH INTERFERENCE??

[Guest]

Runner on second. One out.  NCAA Division II game.  Runner attempts to steal third, right handed batter swings at the pitch and when catcher throws the ball, it deflects off the bat.  Runner remained on third.  What is the call?

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, Guest said:

Runner on second. One out.  NCAA Division II game.  Runner attempts to steal third, right handed batter swings at the pitch and when catcher throws the ball, it deflects off the bat.  Runner remained on third.  What is the call?

Same as if the throw hit the batter as long as the batter did not step back. Live ball.

I don't think this NCAA rule would apply in the OP:

"2) If the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner and the
batter is in the batter’s box and his normal follow-through unintentionally
strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing,
“Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw
retires the runner)."

[Replacematt]

18 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Same as if the throw hit the batter as long as the batter did not step back. Live ball.

I don't think this NCAA rule would apply in the OP:

"2) If the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner and the
batter is in the batter’s box and his normal follow-through unintentionally
strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing,
“Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw
retires the runner)."

Why wouldn't it? All the elements are there.

[Replacematt]

Actually, I need clarification:

Was the batter still in the act of swinging? If so, then that AR applies. If not, this is nothing unless the batter has moved in a manner unrelated to his swing.

[aiber]

The batter was finishing his swing. He did not strike the catcher. The ball struck the bat.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, aiber said:

The batter was finishing his swing. He did not strike the catcher. The ball struck the bat.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's not clear from the OP.

[Rich Ives]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

That's not clear from the OP.

The OP said " when catcher throws the ball, it deflects off the bat. "

Seemed clear to some.

 

[Replacematt]

Just now, Rich Ives said:

The OP said " when catcher throws the ball, it deflects off the bat. "

Seemed clear to some.

 

That has nothing to do with if the swing was still occurring or not.

[ricka56]

Does Fed 7.3.5c make this mess batter out ? 
I pray that never happens to me. 

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, ricka56 said:

Does Fed 7.3.5c make this mess batter out ? 
I pray that never happens to me. 

Yep.

[Jimurray]

28 minutes ago, Matt said:

That has nothing to do with if the swing was still occurring or not.

I don't know how NCAA wants this called but I'm going with the thrown ball hit the bat and no INT. 

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't know how NCAA wants this called but I'm going with the thrown ball hit the bat and no INT. 

If the swing is still occurring, this is weak interference in both OBR and NCAA.

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, Matt said:

If the swing is still occurring, this is weak interference in both OBR and NCAA.

So you have to judge if the backswing/ followthru has hit the thrown ball or the backswing/followthru has ended and the thrown ball hit the stationary bat. And, in OBR you have to judge if the backswing was actually hard and the ball was hit in back of the batter.

[Replacematt]

26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So you have to judge if the backswing/ followthru has hit the thrown ball or the backswing/followthru has ended and the thrown ball hit the stationary bat. And, in OBR you have to judge if the backswing was actually hard and the ball was hit in back of the batter.

You have to judge if the swing has stopped. If the bat is still moving, it's weak INT. If it isn't, it's nothing. And I have no clue what you are saying with your second sentence.

[aiber]

When it happened, I thought about this play, http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/toronto-blue-jays-texas-rangers-score-controversial-play-alds-game-five-postseason-101415 , which is similar. I had nothing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ALStripes17]

When it happened, I thought about this play, http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/toronto-blue-jays-texas-rangers-score-controversial-play-alds-game-five-postseason-101415 , which is similar. I had nothing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

3 different results dependent upon where the batter is and/or ruleset

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, ricka56 said:

Does Fed 7.3.5c make this mess batter out ? 
I pray that never happens to me. 

 

7 hours ago, Matt said:

Yep.

Nope.  Not as described. 

[Replacematt]

54 minutes ago, noumpere said:

 

Nope.  Not as described. 

Yep. The penumbra of 7.3.5F & I together and the plain language of 2-21-4 would indicate that it is INT if a bat hits a throw. I will agree that no caseplay covers this exactly, but between the two of them, I think it shows an intent that any time the batter's actions with the bat interfere, it is INT.

[noumpere]

56 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yep. The penumbra of 7.3.5F & I together and the plain language of 2-21-4 would indicate that it is INT if a bat hits a throw. I will agree that no caseplay covers this exactly, but between the two of them, I think it shows an intent that any time the batter's actions with the bat interfere, it is INT.

All of those have "the bat hitting the ball."  In the OP "the ball hit the bat."  That's enough for me to have a different ruling (at least until the rules makers come out with some clarification).

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

All of those have "the bat hitting the ball."  In the OP "the ball hit the bat."  That's enough for me to have a different ruling (at least until the rules makers come out with some clarification).

Does not matter. By the very nature of the bat moving, it's part of the equation.

Let's change this slightly...attempted throw to 3B, and the catcher's arm hits the bat as it is following through. What do you have?

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

Does not matter. By the very nature of the bat moving, it's part of the equation.

Let's change this slightly...attempted throw to 3B, and the catcher's arm hits the bat as it is following through. What do you have?

PBUC/MLBUM might actually clarify this for @noumpere in OBR. They add that the backswing/follow through hits the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing. 

[maven]

15 minutes ago, noumpere said:

All of those have "the bat hitting the ball."  In the OP "the ball hit the bat."  That's enough for me to have a different ruling (at least until the rules makers come out with some clarification).

I'm leaning this way, too. 7-3-5c prohibits the batter from "making any other movement, including follow-through interference...." If the swing has ended and F2 throws the ball into a (more or less) stationary bat or batter, I do not regard that as the batter making a prohibited movement.

In short, it matters by rule whether bat hit ball (INT) or ball hit bat (play on).

@Matt cites the definition of follow-through INT (2-21-4), but that seems even narrower, requiring the bat to contact F2 rather than the ball. Parsing that definition is lexically challenging, but I interpret the rule more liberally on the basis of 7-3-5.

[Replacematt]

Just now, maven said:

I'm leaning this way, too. 7-3-5c prohibits the batter from "making any other movement, including follow-through interference...." If the swing has ended and F2 throws the ball into a (more or less) stationary bat or batter, I do not regard that as the batter making a prohibited movement.

In short, it matters by rule whether bat hit ball (INT) or ball hit bat (play on).

@Matt cites the definition of follow-through INT (2-21-4), but that seems even narrower, requiring the bat to contact F2 rather than the ball. Parsing that definition is lexically challenging, but I interpret the rule more liberally on the basis of 7-3-5.

But no one is disagreeing that if the swing has ended, it's nothing.

And 2-21-4 states that it is interference if it interferes with the play, not just the player.

[Replacematt]

And by the way, just to make it clear, I think 7-3-5c is an abhorrent rule. Please don't confuse my more liberal reading of it with support of its merits.

[maven]

13 minutes ago, Matt said:

But no one is disagreeing that if the swing has ended, it's nothing.

And 2-21-4 states that it is interference if it interferes with the play, not just the player.

2-21-4: "Follow-through interference is when the bat hits the catcher after the batter has swung at a pitch and hinders action at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner."

That's not what happened in the OP: the ball and bat made contact.

I understand your case — and I think you have a case — but I think it's better made with 7-3-5 and the cases you cite rather than this (IMO misleading) definition.

[ALStripes17]

All of those have "the bat hitting the ball."  In the OP "the ball hit the bat."  That's enough for me to have a different ruling (at least until the rules makers come out with some clarification).

Noumpere, you are leaving that ball live in FED?!?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk