Jump to content
grayhawk

Finding Interesting Plays

Recommended Posts

The center field shot shows his feet half over the line with his head and shoulders leaning past that. I understand that we don't have a straight on angle, but the catcher ends up entirely behind him. I've got BI if I see that in a game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

The center field shot shows his feet half over the line with his head and shoulders leaning past that. I understand that we don't have a straight on angle, but the catcher ends up entirely behind him. I've got BI if I see that in a game.

Because the catcher ends up behind him constitutes interference?  Even if the catcher wasn't hindered?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had two "no calls" on similar almost BI situations this summer (I've also called a few BIs this year as well): Both I was able to review on video because the Tourney Facility I work at has cameras up and behind home plate:

One I am pretty sure i got right, the other I am now convinced i probably should have called BI:

On both, the batter reached for an outside pitch, and fell towards the plate on his swing while the catcher was throwing to second.

In case 1, his foot and upper body got out of the box, but not over the plate itself and it was a slow enough motion (he was actually trying not to fall out of the box and even tucked his head away from home plate) to have occurred clearly after the ball was released by the catcher, so my "real time" instinct that there was no actual interference was correct.

In case 2, almost the same situation and landing points, except that the batter's upper body did get over the plate slightly and quicker than case 1, and on replay I can observe the catcher slightly altering his release point/forward step to avoid the batter. Real time, I did not pick that up. So I probably should have grabbed the BI.

Am I evaluating these correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ousafe said:

@grayhawkit :

9/11

Reds @ Mariners

Top 9th inning

2 out 

Uncaught 3K, batter swats ball away inadvertently on the rebound off the catcher.


CCS covers it but Gil and Bob Davidson are both incorrect IMHO. The batter clearly hindered F2 and it should be INT under 6.01(a)(1).

https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/09/mlb-ejection-195-john-libka-3-scott.html

"(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; Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

I've seen an MLB batter called out when his leg contacted the muffed third strike and deflected it to where the catcher had to run after it. The rule and interp changed in past years and distance from the plate is no longer considered when deciding on INT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 2:03 PM, umpstu said:

Because the catcher ends up behind him constitutes interference?  Even if the catcher wasn't hindered?

Obviously not, but it's a key that should make you alert to the possibility. We're protecting the catcher, so if in doubt, call the BI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

CCS covers it but Gil and Bob Davidson are both incorrect IMHO. The batter clearly hindered F2 and it should be INT under 6.01(a)(1).

...

Agree - in OBR, "backswing" seems to be defined as the bat carried all the way around and back behind the batter.  This was not that, it was more along the "backswing" definition in FED.  So if it's not on the (OBR) backswing, then it seems it's just straight up INT, as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in agreement  This should have been INT. Clearly the batter hindered the catcher from making a play on the D3K. Not INT in FED. FED still says this Int needs to be intentional. 

Now, let’s say it’s ruled a ball. I’d this live in all codes?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I’m in agreement  This should have been INT. Clearly the batter hindered the catcher from making a play on the D3K. Not INT in FED. FED still says this Int needs to be intentional.

Are you sure?  This is from the 2019 NFHS case book:

Quote

7.3.5 SITUATION F: With R3 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R3 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R3 returns to third base.

Sounds like pretty much the same play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

Are you sure?  This is from the 2019 NFHS case book:

Sounds like pretty much the same play. 

No it's not the same. The OP has contact with the ball during the unwinding of the swing not the follow-through. In FED that would not be INT unless deemed intentional.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Are you sure?  This is from the 2019 NFHS case book:

Sounds like pretty much the same play. 

I’m not buying the assumption that pulling the bat back is “backswing (OBR) or follow through (fed) Int. By definition, those are when the batter swings and the bat goes around.  This is a check swing/recoil. In the above play, the ball is dead because the batter interfered  with the catcher’s ability to field the D3K. (6.01(a)(1)). Nothing to do with backswing. In FED, D3K int has to be intentional. Here, it is not intentional so in FED, this play is “ play on”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.27, p. 108) regarding the backswing interference in Cincinnati v Seattle game (this interpretation should also be found in the current MLBUM):

BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER

Rule 6.03(a)(3) [former Rule 6.06(c)]:

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 catcher’s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. 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.

This interpretation applies even if the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner. That is, if the batter is in the batter’s box and his normal backswing or follow-through unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, “Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.27, p. 108) regarding the backswing interference in Cincinnati v Seattle game (this interpretation should also be found in the current MLBUM):

BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER

Rule 6.03(a)(3) [former Rule 6.06(c)]:

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 catcher’s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. 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.

This interpretation applies even if the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner. That is, if the batter is in the batter’s box and his normal backswing or follow-through unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, “Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner).

The problem is why does the MLBUM and MiLBUM  say "or backswing"? If the batter swings and his follow-through hits the catcher or the ball...…. No problem. What do they mean by "or backswing". Is that the same as follow-through or is it something else such as a recoil? I think it's the same thing as follow-through but CCS could argue that it was "backswing" (recoil or unwinding). In any case the umpires in the MLB OP either did not see the bat hit the ball or judged that there was no INT because if they did see the bat hit the ball they judged that the catcher wasn't hindered or 6.01(a)(1) didn't apply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.27, p. 108) regarding the backswing interference in Cincinnati v Seattle game (this interpretation should also be found in the current MLBUM):

BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER

Rule 6.03(a)(3) [former Rule 6.06(c)]:

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 catcher’s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. 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.

This interpretation applies even if the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner. That is, if the batter is in the batter’s box and his normal backswing or follow-through unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, “Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner).

The manuals in this case, muddy the meaning of "backswing". From the rulebook, 

6.03(a)(3) comment ..."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. 

That seems clear what a backswing is. The MLBUM and MilBUM cloud the definition. 

IMO, 6.03(a)(3) pertains to plays like this (which MLB has said was ruled incorrectly)

https://www.mlb.com/video/russell-scores-on-an-error-c1862903183

Our play from 9-11-2019 is covered by this

6.01(a)(1) comment 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; Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

This whole discussion is similar to a call I had this summer that we discussed here. ... 2 strikes, R1 stealing. Batter  swings like in this example, pulls the bat back and hinders F2's throw to retire R1.

Do we have backswing INT, runner returns, or Batter Int,  strike 3, runner is out? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual I have plenty of supporting evidence for my earlier post. Let’s start with the analysis of this play written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports. The article is titled MLB Ejection 195—John Libka (3; Scott Servais) and dated September 11, 2019. Gil’s call is that rule 6.03(a)(3) Comment is the applicable rule.

And the website baseballrulesacademy.com wrote an analysis of the play and arrived at the same conclusion—that rule 6.03(a)(3) is the applicable rule. Their article was credited to their Rules Desk so I cannot say exactly who wrote the article but their staff includes Chris Welsh, Ted Barrett, Rich Marazzi, Rick Roder, and Sam Griffith. The following is an excerpt from their analysis.

Servais argued correctly that when Dietrich’s bat contacted the ball on the “follow-through” the ball should have been called “dead” and no runners advance. Since it was strike three on Dietrich, the game should have ended right there. But none of the umpires saw the ball contact Dietrich’s bat. This is not a reviewable play so Mariners were forced to get one more out to finally win the game.

This is a rare play but it is covered in the OBR, 6.03(a)(3) Comment.

“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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

As usual I have plenty of supporting evidence for my earlier post. Let’s start with the analysis of this play written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports. The article is titled MLB Ejection 195—John Libka (3; Scott Servais) and dated September 11, 2019. Gil’s call is that rule 6.03(a)(3) Comment is the applicable rule.

And the website baseballrulesacademy.com wrote an analysis of the play and arrived at the same conclusion—that rule 6.03(a)(3) is the applicable rule. Their article was credited to their Rules Desk so I cannot say exactly who wrote the article but their staff includes Chris Welsh, Ted Barrett, Rich Marazzi, Rick Roder, and Sam Griffith. The following is an excerpt from their analysis.

Servais argued correctly that when Dietrich’s bat contacted the ball on the “follow-through” the ball should have been called “dead” and no runners advance. Since it was strike three on Dietrich, the game should have ended right there. But none of the umpires saw the ball contact Dietrich’s bat. This is not a reviewable play so Mariners were forced to get one more out to finally win the game.

This is a rare play but it is covered in the OBR, 6.03(a)(3) Comment.

“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.”

We don't know if none of the umpires saw the ball hit the bat. The deflection of the ball is pretty obvious and the direction makes it unlikely that it was done by the catcher. But I do hope that nobody saw it hit because otherwise it would be a rule kick of either 6.01(a)(1) or 6.03(a)(3) depending on what MLB means by "backswing (follow-through)" or "backswing or follow-through". Bob Davidson, commenting on CCS,  has this as a good no call by the crew even with his knowledge of the contact so it's possible current umpires are not aware of what MLB intended in either rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with backswing interference (OBR) and follow through interference (Fed) on this play.  I believe that is within the spirit and intent of the rule.  While the bat didn't go all the way around, the batter clearly hit the ball AFTER his initial intent to strike at it (check swing ruled a swing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.mlb.com/news/tony-kemp-scores-on-strange-play-by-pirates

Wild appeal throw does not appear to go out of play. It appears that Hurdle points to F5 when he retrieves the ball to tell him to go touch 3B and I'm assuming that's what happened. So overthrow is returned to the base and appeal is valid. Why do 4 guys have to get together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/09/15/mlb-regret-over-replay-miscommunication-in-white-sox-loss/40153765/

Ball hit the top of the wall and bounced back into play and was gloved by one of the outfielders. MLB says it was not a HR so they must have viewed more video than this to determine that the very very slight possibility that it hit the screen above and slightly behind the wall as it bounced back into the playing field did not happen. I call at a stadium with a similar setup and those slightly set back screens/rails above the wall can be a problem that only video can solve. When in doubt keep it live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/09/15/mlb-regret-over-replay-miscommunication-in-white-sox-loss/40153765/

Ball hit the top of the wall and bounced back into play and was gloved by one of the outfielders. MLB says it was not a HR so they must have viewed more video than this to determine that the very very slight possibility that it hit the screen above and slightly behind the wall as it bounced back into the playing field did not happen. I call at a stadium with a similar setup and those slightly set back screens/rails above the wall can be a problem that only video can solve. When in doubt keep it live.

That doesn’t even make sense to me.  

Renteria says he asked them to review the home run.  They went to the headset, then came back and asked him if he wanted to challenge the batter touching home plate?  :WTF

A very valuable lesson (by example) on the importance of being VERY specific and deliberate when speaking with coaches, especially about a controversial play.  Don’t offer additional information.  Don’t ask leading questions.  Just find out what the coach wants and address that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jimurray said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/09/15/mlb-regret-over-replay-miscommunication-in-white-sox-loss/40153765/

Ball hit the top of the wall and bounced back into play and was gloved by one of the outfielders. MLB says it was not a HR so they must have viewed more video than this to determine that the very very slight possibility that it hit the screen above and slightly behind the wall as it bounced back into the playing field did not happen. I call at a stadium with a similar setup and those slightly set back screens/rails above the wall can be a problem that only video can solve. When in doubt keep it live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OAK vs, KC, Bottom 10, 2 outs, Grossman the batter. Ground ball to SS who throws to first for the 3rd out. Interesting thing was Greg Gibson going straight from a safe mechanic (presumably on the pulled foot of F3) to an out mechanic. Call was correct, but the mechanics looked really bad. Once the video is up, I'd love to get some input as to why he was so early, or if he was signaling something else. If it was just a case of bad timing, it was REALLY bad (to the point I don't think I would ever make that mistake), and I just wouldn't expect to see that from an MLB guy, especially one like Greg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9/18/19, Padres @ Brewers, Bottom of 7th, 2 out, R3, 2-2 count...

Pitch in dirt, swung at. Ball gets away from catcher, but Batter’s movement propels the ball away from the catcher. Throw from catcher to F3 not in time. R3 scores. 

Crew gets together, and must have judged Interference, and called BR out.

Big discussion after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MadMax said:

9/18/19, Padres @ Brewers, Bottom of 7th, 2 out, R3, 2-2 count...

Pitch in dirt, swung at. Ball gets away from catcher, but Batter’s movement propels the ball away from the catcher. Throw from catcher to F3 not in time. R3 scores. 

Crew gets together, and must have judged Interference, and called BR out.

Big discussion after. 

6.01(a)(1). pretty easy but the 2013 change is apparently not well known among some MLB umps.  While it seems unfair that's the rule. But you gotta wonder why the "suits on park avenue" (Bob Davidson"s expression) can't get all 200 -300 umps together and tell them why they changed that rule and how to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...