Was the backswing deemed intentional?

[Jimurray]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63520384/v1086840983/bostb-rays-get-double-play-on-batter-interference/?query=interference

I've got backswing Int and R1 returns but maybe PU deemed it intentional by Ortiz. 

[JaxRolo]

53 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63520384/v1086840983/bostb-rays-get-double-play-on-batter-interference/?query=interference

I've got backswing Int and R1 returns but maybe PU deemed it intentional by Ortiz. 

I'd like to know the ruling!

[Richvee]

Seemed like typical backswing INT to me. Ortiz didn't seem to hinder the catcher in any other way but with the backswing. He didn't step into the catcher's path,  and the contact sure didn't seem intentional. Odd...

[MooseLoop]

OBR 6.01(a) Batter or Runner Interference:

"It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch; . . .

. . .

(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate . . .; " [Emphasis added.]

Since catcher was making a play on a runner already attempting to steal, runner is out, whereas if runner advanced as result of a U3K interference, then runner would return if not thrown out.

[Jimurray]

37 minutes ago, MooseLoop said:

OBR 6.01(a) Batter or Runner Interference:

"It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch; . . .

. . .

(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate . . .; " [Emphasis added.]

Since catcher was making a play on a runner already attempting to steal, runner is out, whereas if runner advanced as result of a U3K interference, then runner would return if not thrown out.

So you are discounting the backswing exemption clause because it was a third strike backswing? What would you have if this was a strike two backswing.?

[Richvee]

6.03(a)(3) comment makes no exception for backswing interference on strike 3.

If a 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,
unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him
on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference).
The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall
advance on the play.

[lawump]

The MLB umpire botched the rule.  Not trying to throw him under the bus...but a mistake is a mistake.  This is classic backswing interference.  The umpire manual fully deals with this (as does the new rulebook as cited by Richvee) in stating that if it happens on a third strike, the ball is dead and no runners may advance.

Of course, his ruling is likely correct for FED.  (I say "likely" because while this is batter's interference in FED (and not backswing interference) the runner is not automatically "out" if the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner after having struck out.  Thus, if this was in FED, the MLB umpire's call of batter interference would be correct, but calling the runner "out" would only occur if it was probable that the catcher would have retired him had he not been interfered.) 

Considering the size of the crowd in the Trop so far this series, he might have thought he was working a FED game.

[grayhawk]

Should have protested.  Crew would have gotten together and fixed it.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, lawump said:

The MLB umpire botched the rule.  Not trying to throw him under the bus...but a mistake is a mistake.  This is classic backswing interference.  The umpire manual fully deals with this (as does the new rulebook as cited by Richvee) in stating hat if it happens on a third strike, the ball is dead and no runners may advance.

Of course, his ruling is likely correct for FED.  (I say "likely" because while this is batter's interference in FED (and not backswing interference) the runner is not automatically "out" if the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner after having struck out.  Thus, if this was in FED, the MLB umpire's call of batter interference would be correct, but calling the runner "out" would only occur if it was probable that the catcher would have retired him had he not been interfered.) 

Considering the size of the crowd in the Trop so far this series, he might have thought he was working a FED game.

Is "probable" the correct verbiage for this call? (FED of course). I always though we'd call the out in FED if there was any chance F2 could have thrown out the runner. Maybe picking nits, but to me, probable means better than 50% chance, where "a chance" could be any chance at all.

[lawump]

I'm getting myself in trouble with my choice of words.  Okay, the rulebook uses the word "possible".  The casebook uses "could" (as in (to paraphrase) if he "could" have gotten a double play).  And those are the issues: (1) there is inconsistency in the use of verbiage between the two books; and, (2) what constitutes "possible" or "could"?  A 20% likelihood of a double play?  80%?

I used "probable" (as in "more likely than not"...as in you would only call the double play if you believed the double play was 50.1% more likely to occur than not occur) based on conversations I've had as a member of the rules committee, and the impression those conversations left on me.  However, those conversations and my impressions of those conversations are certainly NOT an official opinion.  So, I don't know "officially" what the rule of thumb is for determining when to call the runner out and when not to call him out and return him to his TOI base.

For what its worth, I am not a fan of this part of the FED rule.  I proposed amending the rule to adopt the MLB/NCAA rule with regards to batter's interference after strike three on the ground that the MLB/NCAA penalty to this rule is much easier for umpires to officiate than the FED penalty.  Personally, I don't know how one tracks a pitch all the way to the glove, possibly have to rule on a check swing, sees and calls interference and then also sees where the runner was located on the base path in order to determine if a double-play was "possible".  Since almost all FED games use 2-man umpire crews, the base umpire has no clue since he has his back to the runner.  

Anyways, since the 2017 rule changes have been released...you can see my proposal with regards to this rule did not pass.  Oh well.

[Lindsay]

Here's a video of a similar strike three backswing-hits-catcher play that resulted in an overturned call thanks to Replay. Audio picks up Mike DiMuro explaining his ruling. For the most part, DiMuro's and Kulpa's plays are the same (backswing on a K3 hits the catcher while R1 is stealing), but their rulings are different (DiMuro: B1 out [K3], R1 returned to 1B; Kulpa: B1 out [K3], R1 out [B1 INT]). http://www.closecallsports.com/2014/07/mlb-instant-replay-review-657-jerry.html

[Stk004]

10 minutes ago, Gil said:

Here's a video of a similar strike three backswing-hits-catcher play that resulted in an overturned call thanks to Replay. Audio picks up Mike DiMuro explaining his ruling. For the most part, DiMuro's and Kulpa's plays are the same (backswing on a K3 hits the catcher while R1 is stealing), but their rulings are different (DiMuro: B1 out [K3], R1 returned to 1B; Kulpa: B1 out [K3], R1 out [B1 INT]). http://www.closecallsports.com/2014/07/mlb-instant-replay-review-657-jerry.html

Harold Reynolds' explanation........ good enough. 

[grayhawk]

@Gil you could have warned us about the horseSH*# announcing in that video!

[Stk004]

Just now, grayhawk said:

@Gil you could have warned us about the horseSH*# announcing in that video!

Look guys, there's a Joe Buck icon!

[Thunderheads]

6 hours ago, grayhawk said:

@Gil you could have warned us about the horseSH*# announcing in that video!

you're an umpire Steve, ...you should KNOW and EXPECT horseSH*# announcing!  

[Thunderheads]

6 hours ago, Gil said:

Here's a video of a similar strike three backswing-hits-catcher play that resulted in an overturned call thanks to Replay. Audio picks up Mike DiMuro explaining his ruling. For the most part, DiMuro's and Kulpa's plays are the same (backswing on a K3 hits the catcher while R1 is stealing), but their rulings are different (DiMuro: B1 out [K3], R1 returned to 1B; Kulpa: B1 out [K3], R1 out [B1 INT]). http://www.closecallsports.com/2014/07/mlb-instant-replay-review-657-jerry.html

Thanks Gil .... 

This shows Kulpa's ruling incorrect then, yes? (And everything discussed above )

[ALStripes17]

Did DiMuro come out immediately and look like he was waving stuff off in the initial video? Was that to disregard the INT based on the call at 2B?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Stk004]

3 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Did DiMuro come out immediately and look like he was waving stuff off in the initial video? Was that to disregard the INT based on the call at 2B?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I think he thought R1 was safe. 

[Lindsay]

5 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

This shows Kulpa's ruling incorrect then, yes? (And everything discussed above )

If the judgment is B1's actions are intentional or that B1's step with his right foot while maintaining his balance hinders F2, Kulpa's call is rules-correct.

If the judgment is B1's actions and the resulting backswing is inadvertent, and that he did not otherwise hinder F2, the call is rules-incorrect.

[Lindsay]

11 hours ago, grayhawk said:

@Gil you could have warned us about the horseSH*# announcing in that video!

Sorry, I saw it was a national TV game and instinctively muted the speakers.

[JaxRolo]

The MLB umpire botched the rule.  Not trying to throw him under the bus...but a mistake is a mistake.  This is classic backswing interference.  The umpire manual fully deals with this (as does the new rulebook as cited by Richvee) in stating that if it happens on a third strike, the ball is dead and no runners may advance.

Of course, his ruling is likely correct for FED.  (I say "likely" because while this is batter's interference in FED (and not backswing interference) the runner is not automatically "out" if the batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner after having struck out.  Thus, if this was in FED, the MLB umpire's call of batter interference would be correct, but calling the runner "out" would only occur if it was probable that the catcher would have retired him had he not been interfered.) 

Considering the size of the crowd in the Trop so far this series, he might have thought he was working a FED game.

I agree on the FED part.

[Lindsay]

Just posted my summary, here's my take-home:

Quote

 Under NFHS rules, Scenario (A) results in a double play, since the backswing contact is interference in high school [assuming R1 could have been thrown out, absent the INT]. In NCAA/college, however, it is not interference: "on a third strike, the ball is dead; the batter is out." Oddly enough, PBUC has the exact same interpretation as NCAA ("on a third strike, the ball is dead and the batter is out"). In other words, backswing or follow through contact is interference in high school, but not in college or pro. Because of this difference, the runner is out in high school for the interference of his recently-retired teammate (e.g., B1), but not in college/pro, because in college/pro, the just-retired B1 did not commit interference, since backswing contact with the catcher is not true interference.

 

[JaxRolo]

Just posted my summary, here's my take-home:

 Under NFHS rules, Scenario (A) results in a double play, since the backswing contact is interference in high school [assuming R1 could have been thrown out, absent the INT]. In NCAA/college, however, it is not interference: "on a third strike, the ball is dead; the batter is out." Oddly enough, PBUC has the exact same interpretation as NCAA ("on a third strike, the ball is dead and the batter is out"). In other words, backswing or follow through contact is interference in high school, but not in college or pro. Because of this difference, the runner is out in high school for the interference of his recently-retired teammate (e.g., B1), but not in college/pro, because in college/pro, the just-retired B1 did not commit interference, since backswing contact with the catcher is not true interference.

 

Good post

[Lindsay]

I should also note that the backswing contact post-pitch is "follow-through interference" in high school, but it's essentially the same end result: it's interference whereas in college/pro, it's not.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Gil said:

Just posted my summary, here's my take-home:

 

I agree with your conclusions but I think PBUC and NCAA are addressing a third strike not caught in your cites. I still infer no interference on a third strike caught backswing. Or you might have a more current PBUC, MiLBUM, MLBUM than me.