3rd strike interference? dead ball? play on? 2 outs?

[aaluck]

NFHS rules.  

3-2 B7, 1 out, runner on second, 0-2 on the batter. Pitcher throws a low curve, batter swings/misses, ball hits the dirt then somehow (I'm blocked by catcher attempting to block the ball) the ball bounces up, back into the follow through of the bat and is "hit" 15-20 feet into foul territory toward 3rd base dugout.  B/R breaks for 1st, R2 breaks for 3rd.

Before I say what I did I'm curious as to what everyone would have done. Obviously, with the score 3-2 B7 you guys know no matter what I did someone came unglued.

[Replacematt]

12 hours ago, aaluck said:

I thought about this on the way home....

can anyone tell me why I should not have called 2 outs? And the reasons?  In hind sight the catcher “could’ have made a play at third?  I’m just thinking out loudly.  

Well, it was a legally-batted ball, for starters...

[The Man in Blue]

Removed duplicates

Edited March 5, 2020 by The Man in Blue
Darn computer -- multiple posts!

[The Man in Blue]

Removed duplicates

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, aaluck said:

I thought about this on the way home....

can anyone tell me why I should not have called 2 outs? And the reasons?  In hind sight the catcher “could’ have made a play at third?  I’m just thinking out loudly.  

 

Here is a really good reason:

Did you think that was possible before the coach said anything?  If you had that thought on your own at the time the play occurred, you would have made that award.

Obstruction and interference calls grant us the ability to judge what we think WOULD have happened, NOT permission to delve into the infinite possibilities of what COULD have happened.

 

[Tborze]

18 hours ago, Matt said:

So, the OP is a legally-batted ball, since it was batted before hitting someone or something (as written.)

Ok, I'm intrigued!  Are you saying the batter can swing multiple times at a pitch, or that FED doesn't prohibit it?

The Bugs Bunny cartoon comes to mind. 

[aaluck]

19 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Ok, I'm intrigued!  Are you saying the batter can swing multiple times at a pitch, or that FED doesn't prohibit it?

The Bugs Bunny cartoon comes to mind. 

“SECTION 2 STRIKES, BALLS AND HITS

ART. 1 . . . A strike is charged to the batter when:

a. a pitch enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at;

b. a pitch is struck at and missed (even if the pitch touches the batter);”

Excerpt From: NFHS. “2018 NFHS Baseball Rules Book.” iBooks. https://books.apple.com/us/book/2018-nfhs-baseball-rules-book/id1314997555

 

b states that clearly, so far as I read it.  The moment he swung and missed he was out...no longer a batter but now a runner.

Or that's how I read it.  I don't have the casebook in front of me though.

[Replacematt]

It doesn't say that it's a strike when the batter misses the pitch. It says a pitch becomes a strike when missed. That pitch isn't missed until it ends. Look at the 2006 interpretation previously posted...the touching of someone or something would be irrelevant to that interpretation unless it intended to allow a batter to hit the ball on the follow-through.

[Richvee]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

It doesn't say that it's a strike when the batter misses the pitch. It says a pitch becomes a strike when missed. That pitch isn't missed until it ends. Look at the 2006 interpretation previously posted...the touching of someone or something would be irrelevant to that interpretation unless it intended to allow a batter to hit the ball on the follow-through.

You go with that in your game...I'll stick with batter interference, batter out, runners return and I bet I have a better day than you on the field. 

[udbrky]

This sounds like the 2017 NLDS Cubs vs Nationals play. 

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/bizarre-fifth-inning-pivots-nlds-game-5-c258403306

 

https://www.closecallsports.com/2017/10/follow-through-backswing-contact-or.html

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

You go with that in your game...I'll stick with batter interference, batter out, runners return and I bet I have a better day than you on the field. 

I'm really not concerned about having a better or worse day.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, udbrky said:

This sounds like the 2017 NLDS Cubs vs Nationals play. 

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/bizarre-fifth-inning-pivots-nlds-game-5-c258403306

 

https://www.closecallsports.com/2017/10/follow-through-backswing-contact-or.html

For OBR, that would be the right rule, but different effects than that play.

[aaluck]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

It doesn't say that it's a strike when the batter misses the pitch. It says a pitch becomes a strike when missed. That pitch isn't missed until it ends. Look at the 2006 interpretation previously posted...the touching of someone or something would be irrelevant to that interpretation unless it intended to allow a batter to hit the ball on the follow-through.

In this case I THINK we can all agree (even though I was blocked) that this pitch hit the catcher.  Curveballs thrown into the ground that PASS the hitter do not bounce at acute angles on their own (acute angle means less that 90 degrees, or backward)...its not a wedge shot into a green (figured that geometry with my crayon).  At least I have never seen a pitch bounce backward (and upward) without hitting something.  And as the ball was past the plate it could be only one thing (catcher), or maybe the chalk line--and Ive never seen that happen either..

Sometimes we have to use common sense.  If I see a swing, hear a thud and see the catchers glove fly toward the mound I KNOW the bat hit the glove, I don't need to see it.

I NEVER assumed, nor did the OP say it didn't hit the catcher...I just didn't SEE it.

Maybe this will clear that up.

[Richvee]

39 minutes ago, aaluck said:

In this case I THINK we can all agree (even though I was blocked) that this pitch hit the catcher.  Curveballs thrown into the ground that PASS the hitter do not bounce at acute angles on their own (acute angle means less that 90 degrees, or backward)...its not a wedge shot into a green (figured that geometry with my crayon).  At least I have never seen a pitch bounce backward (and upward) without hitting something.  And as the ball was past the plate it could be only one thing (catcher), or maybe the chalk line--and Ive never seen that happen either..

Sometimes we have to use common sense.  If I see a swing, hear a thud and see the catchers glove fly toward the mound I KNOW the bat hit the glove, I don't need to see it.

I NEVER assumed, nor did the OP say it didn't hit the catcher...I just didn't SEE it.

Maybe this will clear that up.

Yes. Sometimes just let common sense rule. 

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

In this case I THINK we can all agree (even though I was blocked) that this pitch hit the catcher.  

That's my assumption here, and why I have BI.

As for why you didn't get two outs - because at the time of the BI, there wasn't another play to be made. You said that R2 broke for 3rd after the ball was hit. That leads me to believe that at the time of BI, he's hanging around 2nd with no play available.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, aaluck said:

 If I see a swing, hear a thud and see the catchers glove fly toward the mound I KNOW the bat hit the glove, I don't need to see it.

Ask Mark Uyl about that.

The rest of your post should have been brought up long ago.

My thoughts still stand with regards to an untouched pitch.

[Aging_Arbiter]

@aaluck said crayon

 

SEMPER FI BROTHER!!!

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Matt said:

It doesn't say that it's a strike when the batter misses the pitch. It says a pitch becomes a strike when missed. That pitch isn't missed until it ends. Look at the 2006 interpretation previously posted...the touching of someone or something would be irrelevant to that interpretation unless it intended to allow a batter to hit the ball on the follow-through.

Ummm ... that is exactly what it says ...

SECTION 2 STRIKES, BALLS AND HITS

ART. 1 . . . A strike is charged to the batter when:

a. a pitch enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at;

b. a pitch is struck at and missed (even if the pitch touches the batter);”

Once the bat passes the ball, it has been struck at and missed.  That's it. 

You do not get repeated swings or repeated resets and retries.  The follow-through is not a part of the "strike" at the ball.  Once the ball and the bat miss one time, you are done.

OR, using your logic, we could get two strikes on (almost) every swing.  OR, if the ball eludes the catcher, the batter could chase it down before it hits the backstop and before it quits rolling and golf-swing it into play.  Oh crap, Manfred is calling me.  I bet he is going to want to use that now.

 

I know, I know ...

[Tborze]

22 hours ago, Matt said:

It doesn't say that it's a strike when the batter misses the pitch. It says a pitch becomes a strike when missed. That pitch isn't missed until it ends. Look at the 2006 interpretation previously posted...the touching of someone or something would be irrelevant to that interpretation unless it intended to allow a batter to hit the ball on the follow-through.

In that interp, the batter didn't swing!  ?  

There is an older interp that states you only have "one opportunity" to hit a pitched ball. The Bugs Bunny cartoon was posted in the thread. 

1-3-2 Each legal wood, aluminum or composite bat shall:

So, can I come to the plate with all of those if I can swing multiple times

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

OR, using your logic, we could get two strikes on (almost) every swing.  OR, if the ball eludes the catcher, the batter could chase it down before it hits the backstop and before it quits rolling and golf-swing it into play

Almost...But he'd have a foot out of the batters box. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Almost...But he'd have a foot out of the batters box. 

Actually, it would be both feet ... and I don't think the rule specifies when it is both feet!  LEGAL!  PLAY ON!  

[beerguy55]

On 3/6/2020 at 7:51 AM, The Man in Blue said:

Ummm ... that is exactly what it says ...

SECTION 2 STRIKES, BALLS AND HITS

ART. 1 . . . A strike is charged to the batter when:

a. a pitch enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at;

b. a pitch is struck at and missed (even if the pitch touches the batter);”

Once the bat passes the ball, it has been struck at and missed.  That's it. 

You do not get repeated swings or repeated resets and retries.  The follow-through is not a part of the "strike" at the ball.  Once the ball and the bat miss one time, you are done.

OR, using your logic, we could get two strikes on (almost) every swing.  OR, if the ball eludes the catcher, the batter could chase it down before it hits the backstop and before it quits rolling and golf-swing it into play.  

 

First - your last statement is classic logical fallacy - reductio ad absurdum - and only detracts from your position - by rule and definition there can only be one ball or strike per pitch, so no, using any logic or illogic you want you could NEVER get two strikes on one pitch.  And, in your other absurd example, the batter would be, worse case scenario, called out for batting a ball while outside the box.  There are no loopholes here.  There is no slippery slope to worry about.

Here's the  problem with your statement bolded above...if you take an extreme example of a batter really fooled badly on an eephus pitch, where he swings and the ball is still 30 feet from the plate, the bat has not yet passed the ball, nor vice versa.

I think there is a common (and maybe common sense) belief that he is not allowed to swing again, but I'm not sure if that has ever been put down in black and white, either by rule or precedent.  The rule you state above is about as close as it gets, but I'm not sure it's close enough.

But even if we dismiss the notion of whether he can swing again and agree that he can't...sure - he only gets one "attempt"; your secondary statement, in red, about the follow-through has no foundation.  In all other cases it wouldn't matter how his bat got to meet the ball, as long as that pitch hasn't touched anything else, and is still a pitch when it happens - any other legal pitch that hits your bat, whether you  intended it or not, no matter where your bat is located, is a batted ball.  You don't have to swing to hit the ball.  And if you did swing, whether the ball was hit on the swing or the follow through shouldn't matter.  Technically speaking, the follow through is still part of the swing.  To conclude that it is to be excluded from the "strike at" the ball is a leap that doesn't seem to fit all the other facts in play.  Equate it to the NFL Tuck rule if you will.

I can only conclude that, by definition (without supplemental interpretation or case play) it IS still a pitch that can be hit.

In the OP, the pitch didn't pass the bat, batter and plate and then bounce backwards, untouched, to hit the bat....you're left with two choices:

1. Make the assumption the OP eventually described - that the ball must have hit the catcher and bounced back to the batter/bat - making this discussion irrelevant

2. Conclude the batter swung early enough to "miss" before the pitch arrived, and the ball bounced (almost) sideways and hit the bat on the follow through, without hitting anything else

 

If #2, unless there's an interpretation somewhere, that sounds like a batted ball.

[BretMan]

Ya know... 

In FED you can get two strikes on one pitch. Does that mean the entire rest of your analysis is suspect?

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, BretMan said:

Ya know... 

In FED you can get two strikes on one pitch. Does that mean the entire rest of your analysis is suspect?

Well, if you want to get really nuts, you could have an 81 strike perfect game with the pitcher just standing on the rubber with the ball...something tells me it wouldn't get that far.  

 

[aaluck]

21 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

First - your last statement is classic logical fallacy - reductio ad absurdum - and only detracts from your position - by rule and definition there can only be one ball or strike per pitch, so no, using any logic or illogic you want you could NEVER get two strikes on one pitch.  And, in your other absurd example, the batter would be, worse case scenario, called out for batting a ball while outside the box.  There are no loopholes here.  There is no slippery slope to worry about.

Let's make sure to read the rules....

“d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery;

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request “Time,” it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call “Time” and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c), if the pitcher ­legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter’s action to be a deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1n.”

Excerpt From: NFHS. “2018 NFHS Baseball Rules Book.” iBooks. https://books.apple.com/us/book/2018-nfhs-baseball-rules-book/id1314997555

[Tborze]

 

 

21 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

But even if we dismiss the notion of whether he can swing again and agree that he can't...sure - he only gets one "attempt"; your secondary statement, in red, about the follow-through has no foundation.  In all other cases it wouldn't matter how his bat got to meet the ball, as long as that pitch hasn't touched anything else, and is still a pitch when it happens - any other legal pitch that hits your bat, whether you  intended it or not, no matter where your bat is located, is a batted ball.  You don't have to swing to hit the ball.  And if you did swing, whether the ball was hit on the swing or the follow through shouldn't matter.  Technically speaking, the follow through is still part of the swing.  To conclude that it is to be excluded from the "strike at" the ball is a leap that doesn't seem to fit all the other facts in play.  Equate it to the NFL Tuck rule if you will.

I can only conclude that, by definition (without supplemental interpretation or case play) it IS still a pitch that can be hit.

In the OP, the pitch didn't pass the bat, batter and plate and then bounce backwards, untouched, to hit the bat....you're left with two choices:

1. Make the assumption the OP eventually described - that the ball must have hit the catcher and bounced back to the batter/bat - making this discussion irrelevant

2. Conclude the batter swung early enough to "miss" before the pitch arrived, and the ball bounced (almost) sideways and hit the bat on the follow through, without hitting anything else

 

If #2, unless there's an interpretation somewhere, that sounds like a batted ball.

7.3.5 F (<was going to use -here)  @The Man in Blue

A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball...

Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

OK MODS, I think we're done here