Bat contacts catcher's glove

[jjskitours]

Batter squares to bunt and as he checks his attempt by bringing bat back he contacts F2's mitt knocking the ball out. R1 either stays or steals 2nd when he sees ball get away from F2. Do we have batter INT, catcher's obstruction (Fed) or nothing and does it matter what action R1 takes.

[White47]

tough one. I'm not 100% sure on the rule book ruling, but on this play I'm going to take a common scene approach. Let me preface this by saying, I'm envisioning the contact as the bat is coming back in the check swing like in OP. defiantly not OBS. Since the batter check his swing,  I do not think I'd rule CO or CI; I would rule it back swing interference and kill the ball make sure everyone stays put. Now, you have to make sure reason for the check isn't because of the contact, but the way OP is written I do not think it was.

[Gfoley4]

14 minutes ago, White47 said:

tough one. I'm not 100% sure on the rule book ruling, but on this play I'm going to take a common scene approach. Let me preface this by saying, I'm envisioning the contact as the bat is coming back in the check swing like in OP. Since the batter check his swing,  I do not think I'd rule CO or CI; I would rule it back swing interference and kill the ball make sure everyone stays put. Now, you have to make sure reason for the check isn't because of the contact, but the way OP is written I do not think it was.

I think that would be the right approach in OBR, but IIRC 'weak interference' doesn't exist in FED, it's all just considered batter's interference and the batter is out

[White47]

14 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

I think that would be the right approach in OBR, but IIRC 'weak interference' doesn't exist in FED, it's all just considered batter's interference and the batter is out

I would still probably rule it the same way, My argument would be, that there is no hindrance, since he wasn't attempting to strike the ball. also, no one was stealing so there is no one for the catcher to play on. 

now, in FED, if he was stealing you might (hard to say without seeing it) interference, unless it was a very delayed steal. I didn't see that in OP.

[scrounge]

13 minutes ago, White47 said:

tough one. I'm not 100% sure on the rule book ruling, but on this play I'm going to take a common scene approach. Let me preface this by saying, I'm envisioning the contact as the bat is coming back in the check swing like in OP. Since the batter check his swing,  I do not think I'd rule CO or CI; I would rule it back swing interference and kill the ball make sure everyone stays put. Now, you have to make sure reason for the check isn't because of the contact, but the way OP is written I do not think it was.

When I find these tricky kind of situations, I often find it helpful to go back to 'first principles', the definitions.

From 2.21, ART. 5 . . . Backswing interference is when a batter contacts the catcher or his equipment prior to the time of the pitch.

So we have a clear time element involved, prior to TOP. That isn't the situation we're dealing with here. Now, granted the definition of follow-through interference does say after a "swing", which we don't have here, but it's within the spirit of that and certainly within both the spirit and clear text of 7.3.5, IF we have a play:

ART. 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,

If the ball is in the catcher's control in his mitt, the pitch is over. The batter must control his bat, but he didn't. If the runner was *already* stealing and this hindered a potential play, then it's a clear case of BI, but the OP doesn't really describe that. So killing it and halting further action seems appropriate, but not based on backswing interference but rather a general "hold on guys, something unusual happened". If the OC doesn't like that, the other option is calling the batter out for BI. I suspect he'll take the stoppage.

This is a long-winded and pedantic way of saying I pretty much agree with where you ended up.

[White47]

22 minutes ago, scrounge said:

When I find these tricky kind of situations, I often find it helpful to go back to 'first principles', the definitions.

That's where I went after I posted. Normally on here I try to make a good common scene ruling before looking anything up. I think about the age level, Rule set, skill level, the situation, knowledge of the rules, etc., and attempt to make a ruling like I would have to in a game, with out a rule book. It's important to know the rules, but more important then that is knowing how and when to apply them. Being a "Black letter" Umpire is often not the best approach, knowing the spirit of the rules and of the game as well as having common scene in applying them is much more useful, at all levels (MLB to Tball).

Not directed at you just a rant, It looks like you understand this. 

[noumpere]

27 minutes ago, White47 said:

That's where I went after I posted. Normally on here I try to make a good common scene ruling before looking anything up.

It's good to do that mentally, but, imo, you (and all of us) should then look it up before we post.

[jjskitours]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

It's good to do that mentally, but, imo, you (and all of us) should then look it up before we post.

And since you didn't post an answer, does that mean you are still looking it up. I personally like doing nothing if R1 stays put and calling BI if R1 is stealing, whether delayed or on the pitch. Any support from the rules or case plays.

[noumpere]

4 minutes ago, jjskitours said:

And since you didn't post an answer, does that mean you are still looking it up.

No.

 

I'm sure the rule says something like "A batter shall not interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by making any other movement, including backswing interference, which hinders action at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner. "  No attempt, no INT.

And, all the case plays have a runner advancing.  Sometimes,  if there's no play, the runner is returned.  Once, there is no runner, so there's no INT.

Interpret that as you will.

[maven]

46 minutes ago, noumpere said:

And, all the case plays have a runner advancing.  Sometimes,  if there's no play, the runner is returned.  Once, there is no runner, so there's no INT.

Interpret that as you will.

I interpret it to mean that you will send me a million dollars. PM me for the address. And, thanks!

Oh, and I agree that no hindrance = no INT.