Weird bounces between the catcher and batter

[VolUmp]

Part 2 of my "Firsts" last night.  Same AmLegion game.

Two strikes on batter.  Batter swung, tipped the pitch apparently into F2's mitt, ball bounced out of the mitt, hit the bat on the batter's backswing, and F2 caught it with his bare hand before it touched the ground.  I immediately called, "FOUL BALL!"  My gut reaction was once it hit the bat on the backswing, it was dead ... but was it INT or just FOUL?  If it matters, the batter was in his stance in the box the entire time.

No one said a word, but I stood and thought for the rest of the game if I may have missed an INT call on the batter.  As you can imagine, it all happened in a split second.

[Mister B]

IIRC, INT would be a delayed dead ball only called if there were a play being made by the catcher on a runner. 

[noumpere]

Good question.

If this were a third-strike swing-and-miss, the batter is out in both codes.

 

But since it was a batted ball, and not yet foul (after hitting the catcher), you might get a different answer.

[maven]

The batter tipped the pitch into F2's mitt, then batted the ball again as F2 attempted to catch the foul tip. F2 eventually did catch the ball (that is, in flight). Is that it?

If you rule that a foul tip, it's strike 3, and the batter is out.

If you rule that a foul ball, it's caught by F2, and the batter is out.

As F2 made the play on the batted ball, I don't see how we could rule any hindrance here. No hindrance = no INT.

[Rich Ives]

I think it's just foul.

It was already a batted ball due to the tip.

Then while over foul ground it touched a foreign object - the bat.

Dead - can't be caught. 

[maven]

20 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I think it's just foul.

It was already a batted ball due to the tip.

Then while over foul ground it touched a foreign object - the bat.

Dead - can't be caught. 

It's not a foreign object when in the batter's hand, it's player equipment properly "worn."

That said, a batted ball striking a player on offense is no longer in flight, so you're probably right.

[Senor Azul]

Close Call Sports/Umpire Ejection Fantasy League analyzed a very similar play in its Case Play 2016-1 in March of 2016. There is a video provided with the analysis and here is their answer:

“Answer: The batter is out. Explanation: This play is the rarely seen bat-hits-ball element of Backswing/Weak interference, OBR Rule 6.03(a)(3): "He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." Because this rule may be vague and requires explanation, 6.03(a)(3) Comment elucidates and describes the precise "any other movement" scenario depicted in this Case Play:
 

“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.

“Bold emphasis is mine. To put it all together, the pitched ball, struck at and missed by the batter, bounced into and out of the catcher's glove; this uncaught third strike subsequently was unintentionally hit by the bat as it was in back of the batter and on the backswing; therefore, the call is "strike," the ball is dead, and no advancement occurs. Result: THE BATTER IS OUT.”

 

NCAA would rule the same way but FED has a different ruling on this play (see Case Play 7.3.5F).

 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Close Call Sports/Umpire Ejection Fantasy League analyzed a very similar play in its Case Play 2016-1 in March of 2016. There is a video provided with the analysis and here is their answer:

“Answer: The batter is out. Explanation: This play is the rarely seen bat-hits-ball element of Backswing/Weak interference, OBR Rule 6.03(a)(3): "He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." Because this rule may be vague and requires explanation, 6.03(a)(3) Comment elucidates and describes the precise "any other movement" scenario depicted in this Case Play:
 

“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.

“Bold emphasis is mine. To put it all together, the pitched ball, struck at and missed by the batter, bounced into and out of the catcher's glove; this uncaught third strike subsequently was unintentionally hit by the bat as it was in back of the batter and on the backswing; therefore, the call is "strike," the ball is dead, and no advancement occurs. Result: THE BATTER IS OUT.”

 

NCAA would rule the same way but FED has a different ruling on this play (see Case Play 7.3.5F).

 

The difference here being the bat striking the ball (or vice versa) on the original swing, so there's no swing and miss.

I would treat this no differently than the batter hitting the ball off his foot, or hitting the ball twice while still in the batter's box.  Dead/Foul ball.

[beerguy55]

8 hours ago, maven said:

 

As F2 made the play on the batted ball, I don't see how we could rule any hindrance here. No hindrance = no INT.

It hindered F2 from completing the foul tip, turning a caught foul tip (I know, redundant) into a caught dead ball.

Having said that, any time a batter hits a batted ball while he is still in the batter's box he is hindering the defense from making a play on the ball, but the rules make an exception if he is legally in the batter's box.

[maven]

43 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

It hindered F2 ...

No, he did not hinder F2. He did not do anything to F2. He contacted the ball again.

Even with FED's principle of responsibility for the backswing, there's no way I'd rule this batter INT.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, maven said:

No, he did not hinder F2. He did not do anything to F2. He contacted the ball again.

Even with FED's principle of responsibility for the backswing, there's no way I'd rule this batter INT.

dictionary hinder, not baseball hinder