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.

[The Man in Blue]

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.

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.

 

Lot to unpack there ... I will try to do it concisely ... 

 

Reductio ad absurdum -- keep your devil worshiping Harry Potter voodoo out of here.    Of course it was!  That was my point!

Two strikes on one pitch -- well, that was disproved quickly.  Although I admit I would have argued against that until I looked it up.

Eephus fools -- the rule clearly states the pitch is a strike once the ball is struck at and missed.  It has no provision for how bad or foolish the batter is.  Now, I will grant you that an umpire could rule that the first swing was not an attempt to strike at the ball and allow the second swing.  IMO, that would be just like those foolish umpires who rule it a swing when the batter takes a "practice swing" while the ball is in the catcher's mitt.  That does NOT say by rule the batter gets unlimited chances to hack at one pitch.

Case play/precedent -- I am surprised nobody has come up with one yet.  I have done a half-assed search and came up with nothing one way or the other.  @Senor Azul?

Follow-through -- My assertion that the follow-through is not part of the legal attempt to strike at the ball most certainly has foundation.  The follow-through is indeed "part of the physical act of swinging" but it is not part of a legal attempt to strike at a ball.  If it were, follow-through interference would not be defined as something VERY distinct and different from catcher's obstruction:  If were part of the legal attempt to strike at the ball, it should be catcher's obstruction.

2020 NFHS Baseball Rule Book, 2-21-4: "Follow-through interference is when the bat hits the catcher after the batter has swung at a pitch and hinders action at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner."  

2018 NFHS Baseball Case Book, 7.3.5 Situation F: "Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through."  

[The Man in Blue]

16 minutes ago, Tborze said:

 

 

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

I was typing while you posted that!  

[Aging_Arbiter]

[Tborze]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

I was typing while you posted that!  

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

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

 

 

 

I figured someone would go here.

It is still one pitch -> one strike...the first strike is a penalty, and occurs even if there is no pitch at all.   They are two separate events.

As I said elsewhere, you can have three strikes on no pitches...it doesn't dispel anything I said on that point.

 

Even if baseball decided to allow a batter to swing ten times at the same pitch there could only ever be one strike.

 

[Sut'n Blue]

It's deja vu all over again: