Jump to content
  • 0

Play from last night


SavoyBG
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1729 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Federation rules, I was on the bases. Runners on second and third, one out. Batter strikes out swinging. On batter's follow through his bat contacts the catcher's glove and knocks the ball out. Batter now starts running to first. Catcher picks the ball up and is about to throw the ball to first. Either my partner did not see what happened or did not know what to do so I killed it from the bases, and called the batter out before the catcher threw the ball away or something and we had a problem.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

FED calls this "follow-through INT," which is a version of (and penalized as) batter INT. The case play does not explicitly state as much, but it's under the batter INT rule (7-3-5).

7.3.5 SITUATION C: B1 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B1 runs to first base and is safe.

RULING: B1 is ruled out.

It's, um, unusual for the BU to rule on this  (batter INT belongs to the PU): you might consider getting with him after the play, giving him what you have, and having him take the call.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Good call

I believe this type of INT, with no runners stealing would’ve the same all codes. 

If runner(s) were stealing, in FED we could get an additional out on a runner. OBR we have backswing INT and runners would return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, maven said:

FED calls this "follow-through INT," which is a version of (and penalized as) batter INT. The case play does not explicitly state as much, but it's under the batter INT rule (7-3-5).

7.3.5 SITUATION C: B1 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B1 runs to first base and is safe.

RULING: B1 is ruled out.

It's, um, unusual for the BU to rule on this  (batter INT belongs to the PU): you might consider getting with him after the play, giving him what you have, and having him take the call.

That would take some time, and it was over 90 degrees :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, maven said:

FED calls this "follow-through INT," which is a version of (and penalized as) batter INT. The case play does not explicitly state as much, but it's under the batter INT rule (7-3-5).

7.3.5 SITUATION C: B1 is currently up to bat with a 3-2 count, swings and misses at the pitch and contacts the catcher on his follow-through. The result of contact knocks F2 to the ground causing him to drop the ball. B1 runs to first base and is safe.

RULING: B1 is ruled out.

It's, um, unusual for the BU to rule on this  (batter INT belongs to the PU): you might consider getting with him after the play, giving him what you have, and having him take the call.

It seems to me it’s real similar to a foul off the batter in the box that PU doesn’t see right away. Call it from the field when it’s obvious and your partner missed it. 

From “c” he saw the swing, he saw the ball in the mitt, he saw the backswing knock the ball out. His partner evidently didn’t see it or didn’t know what to call. Why go through the BR running to first, maybe R 3 trying to score, and all kinds of throws around the field trying to get people out when none of it should be happening? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, Richvee said:

It seems to me it’s real similar to a foul off the batter in the box that PU doesn’t see right away. Call it from the field when it’s obvious and your partner missed it. 

A foul ball is a shared responsibility. Batter INT is not (normally).

If I had an inexperienced (or competence-challenged) partner, I might do it the way you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, Richvee said:

It seems to me it’s real similar to a foul off the batter in the box that PU doesn’t see right away. Call it from the field when it’s obvious and your partner missed it. 

From “c” he saw the swing, he saw the ball in the mitt, he saw the backswing knock the ball out. His partner evidently didn’t see it or didn’t know what to call. Why go through the BR running to first, maybe R 3 trying to score, and all kinds of throws around the field trying to get people out when none of it should be happening? 

 

And then, in a parallel universe, we have this post: I was PU.  Batter struck out.  He had an extended follow through but the bat went past F2's glove. at the same instant, F2 was flipping the ball from his glove to his free hand, but missed.  The ball went flying away.  My BU thought the bat hit the glove and called the batter out and killed the play.  Nwo what?  F2 and F3 were already starting to advance.  I know BR is out because the ball was "caught then flipped" but how do we reconcile where to put the runners?

 

It's always easier to "go back" and make the ball dead and re-set everything than it is to try to project what might have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
28 minutes ago, maven said:

A foul ball is a shared responsibility. Batter INT is not (normally).

If I had an inexperienced (or competence-challenged) partner, I might do it the way you suggest.

So you prefer to let it play out. Maybe F2 gets to the ball and sees R3 off the bag, a rundown ends up between 3rd and home, BR and R2 moving, maybe more rundowns, maybe runs score, maybe runners are tagged out, maybe INT or OBS on the bases during all this. Then when we're done we're going to get together sort it out and tell my partner I had backswing INT so nothing happened? And then we're going to explain it to the coaches/...A defensive coach who may have tagged out R3 or an offensive coach who may scored a run that nothing happened because of the backswing INT I saw at the beginning of the play?  All because that's the normal mechanic? 

No thanks. I'll avoid that $h*tshow. I'm killing it when I see it if my partner missed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 minutes ago, noumpere said:

And then, in a parallel universe, we have this post: I was PU.  Batter struck out.  He had an extended follow through but the bat went past F2's glove. at the same instant, F2 was flipping the ball from his glove to his free hand, but missed.  The ball went flying away.  My BU thought the bat hit the glove and called the batter out and killed the play.  Nwo what?  F2 and F3 were already starting to advance.  I know BR is out because the ball was "caught then flipped" but how do we reconcile where to put the runners?

 

It's always easier to "go back" and make the ball dead and re-set everything than it is to try to project what might have happened.

Why is it different than a foul off a foot other than BI is PU's call and foul is shared responsibility?  As BU, you're not calling foul unless you're 150% positive you saw the ball hit the batter in the box. Same here...If there's .01% of doubt, let it play out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...