Backswing INT vs foul ball situation

[udbrky]

Had this happen in a 12U fall ball game a couple weeks ago.

 

2-2 count. Batter swings really early and on his follow through, he hits the ball into foul territory. Ball did not reach catcher's glove, or bounce first, he hit it directly on the pitch.

I call Foul, then go "wtf just happened?" and go ask my partner. We change to Backswing INT and call batter out and nobody questioned it. 

 

But I still wonder if it should've been foul, since he hit it before it reached the catcher.

[Gfoley4]

*shrug*

I'd say foul ball since it hit the bat

[maven]

Most folks use "BI" to stand for "batter INT," which results in an out (including FED's "followthrough INT").

In what code does "backswing INT" result in an out?

This was a foul ball.

As a general rule, when you have "WTF was that," we want to lean toward "nothing," not "someone is out."

[udbrky]

Good point on the title.

 

Since it was the third strike, we ruled an out and can't advance on uncaught third strike.

 

I asked my partner what he saw because I wanted a second opinion on it.

 

I wasn't convinced we got it right, since he hit the ball in flight, not off the catcher's glove.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, udbrky said:

Good point on the title.

 

Since it was the third strike, we ruled an out and can't advance on uncaught third strike.

 

I asked my partner what he saw because I wanted a second opinion on it.

 

I wasn't convinced we got it right, since he hit the ball in flight, not off the catcher's glove.

I'm confused by your original description, but if B1 swung at the pitch, missed, and then hit the pitched ball before F2 could catch it, I'd say B1 is out -- you got it right.,

[Rich Ives]

39 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I'm confused by your original description, but if B1 swung at the pitch, missed, and then hit the pitched ball before F2 could catch it, I'd say B1 is out -- you got it right.,

But 

If it's backswing interference that's a dead ball and a strike.

So he's only out if it is strike three (it was here but night not be)

[Senor Azul]

To answer Mr. maven, in at least OBR and NCAA the batter is out on a third strike follow-through interference. Here’s the official interpretation found in the 2014 PBUC (paragraph 7.14, pp. 74-75):

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire’s judgment unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is still in the batter’s box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play… If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.”

The same is true in the NCAA (rule 6-2d-1).

 

[maven]

It's a batted ball. Can't be INT of any kind.

[grayhawk]

58 minutes ago, maven said:

It's a batted ball. Can't be INT of any kind.

I disagree.  The batter swung and missed for strike 3 and then his follow through prevented the catcher from catching the pitch.  I have a dead ball, strike 3 and the batter is out.  The batter doesn't get a second opportunity to strike at the pitch on his follow through.

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, maven said:

It's a batted ball. Can't be INT of any kind.

Read the rule Mr Blue posted. It specifically mentions hitting the ball.

[VolUmp]

49 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Read the rule Mr Blue posted. It specifically mentions hitting the ball

Rich Ives, who is Mr. Blue?  I don't see a post from him on this thread.

3 hours ago, maven said:

It's a batted ball. Can't be INT of any kind.

I rarely disagree with you, Maven, but I would revert to common sense on this one and agree with ...

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The batter swung and missed for strike 3 and then his follow through prevented the catcher from catching the pitch.  I have a dead ball, strike 3 and the batter is out.  The batter doesn't get a second opportunity to strike at the pitch on his follow through.

... Grayhawk. 

If I had to explain it that way ... the batter doesn't get two opportunities to strike at the pitch, I would feel very comfortable with or without a rule.  The old 9.01c would do just fine (Is the new format 6.01c?).  The best analogy I can draw is ... when a batter swings, misses, and then it hits the batter (or excuse me ... "batsman"), he's penalized because he "used up" his one allotted attempt to "strike at the pitch."  The ball is only dead, albeit no INT, but no runners can advance, and only if it's strike three is he called out.

I can see the argument coming up when a batter doesn't intentionally strike at the ball, when he's ducking, but doesn't get the bat down and fouls it off (or twice I've seen a ball roll fair).  It's quite different in that is was his first opportunity to strike at it ... regardless of his intent.

[basejester]

Foul.  Intent does not factor into whether or not the ball was batted.  This is the flip side of the inside pitch that hits the bat (through no effort of the batter, who might even be trying to avoid).

  

[maven]

11 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I disagree.  The batter swung and missed for strike 3 and then his follow through prevented the catcher from catching the pitch. 

That's just it: his swing hit the pitch. How are you getting a "miss" out of this instead of a foul ball?

If he's still swinging, and the pitch is still a pitch, then this is a foul ball. As basejester points out, intent to swing is immaterial: a pitch that hits a bat becomes a batted ball. It's a batted ball even with no swing at all. No rule dictates where in a batter's swing he may no longer contact a pitch: many of us have seen the bat hit the ball when the ball is behind the batter, during the "follow through." Still a batted ball there.

The rule posted is about the situation where the ball (note that it refers to the ball, not the pitch) is in the air after it is no longer a pitch (typically deflecting off things). That's the ball the batter may not legally contact with his swing (part of which we designate as the 'follow through').

Also: "preventing the catcher from catching the pitch" is not the name of an infraction, or else every batted ball would be illegal.

As this is a TWP it's probably not worth bloodshed. But the definitions are on the side of a foul ball here.

[grayhawk]

20 minutes ago, maven said:

That's just it: his swing hit the pitch. How are you getting a "miss" out of this instead of a foul ball?

If he's still swinging, and the pitch is still a pitch, then this is a foul ball. As basejester points out, intent to swing is immaterial: a pitch that hits a bat becomes a batted ball. It's a batted ball even with no swing at all. No rule dictates where in a batter's swing he may no longer contact a pitch: many of us have seen the bat hit the ball when the ball is behind the batter, during the "follow through." Still a batted ball there.

The rule posted is about the situation where the ball (note that it refers to the ball, not the pitch) is in the air after it is no longer a pitch (typically deflecting off things). That's the ball the batter may not legally contact with his swing (part of which we designate as the 'follow through').

Also: "preventing the catcher from catching the pitch" is not the name of an infraction, or else every batted ball would be illegal.

As this is a TWP it's probably not worth bloodshed. But the definitions are on the side of a foul ball here.

If his bat passed the ball and missed on his follow through, are you then charging the batter with two strikes?  After all, his bat missed the pitch twice.  I understand that you are treating the entirety of the swing, including the follow through, as one attempt and because the status of the ball is that it's still a pitch that it's a batted ball.  I simply disagree because the rules treat the follow through as something separate from the swing.  The batter had his chance and missed.  After that, if he impedes the catcher's opportunity to receive the pitch, it's interference.

How about something really absurd?  Same situation, but as the bat is about to hit the ball on the follow through, the bat instead hits the catcher's mitt.  Is this catcher's interference?

[VolUmp]

41 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I simply disagree because the rules treat the follow through as something separate from the swing.

⬆️  THIS  ⬆️

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

If his bat passed the ball and missed on his follow through, are you then charging the batter with two strikes?  After all, his bat missed the pitch twice.  I understand that you are treating the entirety of the swing, including the follow through, as one attempt and because the status of the ball is that it's still a pitch that it's a batted ball.  I simply disagree because the rules treat the follow through as something separate from the swing.  The batter had his chance and missed.  After that, if he impedes the catcher's opportunity to receive the pitch, it's interference.

How about something really absurd?  Same situation, but as the bat is about to hit the ball on the follow through, the bat instead hits the catcher's mitt.  Is this catcher's interference?

Theoretically a batter should be able to "swing" as many times at a single pitch as he wants - the only determination is whether or not he struck at a pitch.  Imagine an extreme change up where the batter had time to swing, and then swing again.   Maybe I'm very wrong, but I know of no rule that says a batter is only allowed one chance to strike at any one pitch.

A pitch can only result in one ball or one strike.  He could stand up there like a mini-putt windmill twirling around and around.  If a pitch is still a pitch, it doesn't matter if it's the swing, the follow through, a second swing, or no swing at all, if his bat contacts it, it's a batted ball.

[Rich Ives]

RTFM - The answer is in the rule.

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire’s judgment unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is still in the batter’s box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play… If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.”

 

[Rich Ives]

10 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Rich Ives, who is Mr. Blue?  I don't see a post from him on this thread.

 

Senor Azul

[maven]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

If his bat passed the ball and missed on his follow through, are you then charging the batter with two strikes?  After all, his bat missed the pitch twice.

That's not apposite. We charge strikes based on the swing, so 1 swing/miss = 1 strike.

We charge batted balls based on contact between a pitch and a bat. Since the swing is irrelevant to whether we have a batted ball—we can have batted balls with no swing at all, or a check swing—it follows that the part of the swing in which the bat and pitch contact must be irrelevant to its status as a batted ball.

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I simply disagree because the rules treat the follow through as something separate from the swing.  The batter had his chance and missed.

You're not disagreeing with me: the follow through is part of the swing. But "had his chance and missed" is based on the mistaken premise that what's at issue is when the parts of the swing start and end. We don't need to parse that (or I don't; you actually do, which is a defect of your argument).

The ONLY criterion for "batted ball" is: did a pitch contact the bat (setting aside various kinds of illegality)? Yes: therefore we have a batted ball, fair or foul. Nothing else matters.

And Ives, please STFU about "the rule," which doesn't apply until after the pitch ends (not when the 'swing' or some part thereof ends).

FWIW, if a batter swings at a pitch and his follow through contacts the pitch, it's worth wondering whether he was really offering at the pitch with his swing. Might not be a strike at all.....

[udbrky]

Shoot, you don't even have to offer at it, ball hits bat as you duck, etc.

[Mussgrass]

53 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Theoretically a batter should be able to "swing" as many times at a single pitch as he wants - the only determination is whether or not he struck at a pitch.  Imagine an extreme change up where the batter had time to swing, and then swing again.   Maybe I'm very wrong, but I know of no rule that says a batter is only allowed one chance to strike at any one pitch.

A pitch can only result in one ball or one strike.  He could stand up there like a mini-putt windmill twirling around and around.  If a pitch is still a pitch, it doesn't matter if it's the swing, the follow through, a second swing, or no swing at all, if his bat contacts it, it's a batted ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOt2iw-7n6A 

[grayhawk]

So then you must call CI when the bat hits the catcher's mitt on the follow through if the pitch hasn't yet been gloved by the catcher.

I agree that this isn't really worth the time we are taking to discuss it. We're talking about a situation that isn't addressed directly because nobody ever thought to write a rule for it. 

[VolUmp]

Does the Bugs Bunny clip depict an entirely new definition of an Immaculate Inning?

1 pitch = 3 outs?  And as many times as I've seen this clip, I forgot each batter went righty-lefty-righty .....

I've already thought of the need for a new definition of an "Immaculate Inning" in the minor leagues if a pitcher throws less than 9 consecutive strikes with the "stay in the box" rule .....

Also:  I've changed my mind after carefully considering all the evidence and discussion provided.

I agree it's a batted ball.

And this is perhaps the strongest park of your (Maven's) argument:

6 hours ago, maven said:

And Ives, please STFU

Anything that came after that was irrelevant.  You had me at "STFU."

[Rich Ives]

21 hours ago, maven said:

 

And Ives, please STFU about "the rule," which doesn't apply until after the pitch ends (not when the 'swing' or some part thereof ends).

 

Gee - I think the rule is pretty clear - the follow-through/backswing hit the ball.    What am I missing?

[ricka56]

On 10/16/2017 at 9:00 AM, grayhawk said:

How about something really absurd?  Same situation, but as the bat is about to hit the ball on the follow through, the bat instead hits the catcher's mitt.  Is this catcher's interference?

I would like to hear maven's answer to grayhawk's insightful question. Is that CI ?