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.

[WilsonFlyer]

{I'm smelling trouble on this one.}

From what you described, I've got a foul ball. Batter back in the box 0-2. Runners return. Assuming the catcher never made contact with the ball, of course and it all happened in front of him.

[The Man in Blue]

I’ve got a dead ball with the batter out and the base runner going back to second base.  (Note: this is NOT follow through interference.  Bonus points for explaining why!)

Rule 7.3.5(c)  7-3-5(c)  Edited to fix my sloppiness.  Thank you @Senor Azul

SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS — A BATTER SHALL NOT:

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).Case Play 7-3-5-F

 

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. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

13 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’ve got a dead ball with the batter out and the base runner going back to second base.  (Note: this is NOT follow through interference.  Bonus points for explaining why!)

Rule 7.3.5(c)

SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS — A BATTER SHALL NOT:

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).Case Play 7-3-5-F

 

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. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

 

Everything in me wanted to dead ball this and call him out on interference with the dropped third but I can't get past the fact that (apparently) the bat hit a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Everything in me wanted to dead ball this and call him out on interference with the dropped third but I can't get past the fact that (apparently) the bat hit a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.

I can't say definitively what FED wants (nor do I care anymore,) but I'm with you in principle. It's still a pitch until ends, which is a key difference between the OP and 7.3.5F.

[aaluck]

4 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Everything in me wanted to dead ball this and call him out on interference with the dropped third but I can't get past the fact that (apparently) the bat hit a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.

...and that was ONE of the big problems. Batter was lefty, pitcher was righty, catcher was set up inside and batter was "on the plate".  There was essentially no slot, so I was positioned above and slightly to the right of the catchers helmet.  All I could see was the back of the catcher.  I will also add my partner was no help on what happened in front of the catcher....but logic (or maybe physics) seemed to indicate to me the catcher "had" to hit it somehow.

[Replacematt]

Just now, aaluck said:

...and that was ONE of the big problems. Batter was lefty, pitcher was righty, catcher was set up inside and batter was "on the plate".  There was essentially no slot, so I was positioned above and slightly to the right of the catchers helmet.  All I could see was the back of the catcher.  I will also add my partner was no help on what happened in front of the catcher....but logic (or maybe physics) seemed to indicate to me the catcher "had" to hit it somehow.

That's a pretty big detail because of what I mentioned above. 

If you have the catcher touching the ball then the bat hitting it, then it's no different than the example in 7.3.5F.

[The Man in Blue]

Once the batter swings and misses, it is a strike.  He doesn’t get a second attempt, either on purpose or accidentally, with his follow through.  Hitting the ball on the follow through is not hitting “a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.”

[aaluck]

2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Once the batter swings and misses, it is a strike.  He doesn’t get a second attempt, either on purpose or accidentally, with his follow through.  Hitting the ball on the follow through is not hitting “a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.”

I definitely agree with that.. he was retired once he missed that ball so now he is runner.  Which is also why I think we cannot have follow through interference?

[Senor Azul]

The following video is from the Close Call Sports analysis of its case play 2016 -1: The Dropped Third Strike.

 

 

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Senor Azul usually has the answer. Some don't like it sometimes, but he always has it.

[WilsonFlyer]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

I definitely agree with that.. he was retired once he missed that ball so now he is runner.  Which is also why I think we cannot have follow through interference?

OK. Ya gotta tell us what ya did and who went ballistic. Details, please. And don't leave anything out.

[WilsonFlyer]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Once the batter swings and misses, it is a strike.  He doesn’t get a second attempt, either on purpose or accidentally, with his follow through.  Hitting the ball on the follow through is not hitting “a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.”

And I think I'm sure I knew that, but thanks for re-affirming it. That's what this forum is for.

[maven]

For FED, this is 7-3-5c batter INT.

It's not follow-through INT, which FED defines as contact with F2 (not the ball).

 

[beerguy55]

53 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Senor Azul usually has the answer. Some don't like it sometimes, but he always has it.

That's the OBR rule...FED only applies to hitting F2, not the ball.

Any way you cut it, batter's out, runners return.

 

The way I'm reading 7-3-5-c it doesn't even matter that there were two strikes.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Once the batter swings and misses, it is a strike.  He doesn’t get a second attempt, either on purpose or accidentally, with his follow through.  Hitting the ball on the follow through is not hitting “a pitched ball directly while still in pitch/play.”

Yes, it is. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

The following video is from the Close Call Sports analysis of its case play 2016 -1: The Dropped Third Strike.

 

 

 

This is not relevant. The pitch ended. 

[aaluck]

2 hours ago, WilsonFlyer said:

OK. Ya gotta tell us what ya did and who went ballistic. Details, please. And don't leave anything out.

I called it interference. Batter out and sent R2 back to 2nd. Then the fun started ....

BOTH coaches sprinted toward me (after calling time, and me granting it).  Defense coach wanted 2 outs claiming his catcher could have tagged the B/R out and thrown to 3rd for that out. Offensive coach claimed foul ball no outs runner back to second (as Wilson stated earlier). I discussed with my partner, who was no help. Kept the call as is and offensive coach threw his hat across the diamond, with some choice words ...I quickly ejected him.  
 

game ended on the next pitch when, for some unknown reason, Asst coach, now on 3rd, tried to steal R2 to 3rd  and got thrown out. Coach was in parking lot waiting at my truck. Luckily police escort us in these tournaments and I let the cop handle him and the “dads”. 
 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Maven gets the bonus points ... NFHS defines “follow through interference” specifically as contacting the catcher on the follow through.  Contacting the ball is not “nothing” though; it’s just run of the mill interference.

[yawetag]

12 hours ago, aaluck said:

BOTH coaches sprinted toward me (after calling time, and me granting it)

Ball was dead on the INT. No need to call (or grant) time.

[aaluck]

2 hours ago, yawetag said:

Ball was dead on the INT. No need to call (or grant) time.

True.  Habit by all involved I guess.

[The Man in Blue]

You should have yelled "Dead ball!"  

[Senor Azul]

Thanks to Mr. WilsonFlyer for the kind words, however, I wasn’t trying to answer the question being discussed in this thread. I was trying to be helpful by supplying a video that was similar to the play in question (something that has been requested numerous times on this site in other threads). Not only that, I had hoped that people would be interested enough to find the article I cited. It did in fact have some discussion of the FED and NCAA interpretations of this in the comments below the analysis. And, yes, Mr. beerguy55, I did realize that the video and its associated analysis was for the OBR and the OP was about FED. I can read and comprehend as well as anyone here. And as usual I do have an answer--

2006 NFHS Baseball Interpretations SITUATION 15: With a runner on third attempting to steal home, the pitch bounces off the plate, hits the catcher’s chest protector and rebounds back in front of the plate in a nice soft arc. The batter, seeing the ball back in front of the plate, hits the ball for a soft fly ball that falls over the second baseman. The defensive coach argues that this is batter interference while the offensive coach counters that since the ball was still technically a pitch, the batter has the right to hit it. RULING: This is batter interference. If the play started with one out, the runner from third would be declared out. If the play started with two outs, the batter would be declared out. The batter has the legal right to strike the pitch as it comes across the home plate area. He no longer has the right to bat the ball once it has passed home plate and subsequently bounces or caroms off someone or something. (7-3-5c Penalty)

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, Senor Azul said:

Thanks to Mr. WilsonFlyer for the kind words, however, I wasn’t trying to answer the question being discussed in this thread. I was trying to be helpful by supplying a video that was similar to the play in question (something that has been requested numerous times on this site in other threads). Not only that, I had hoped that people would be interested enough to find the article I cited. It did in fact have some discussion of the FED and NCAA interpretations of this in the comments below the analysis. And, yes, Mr. beerguy55, I did realize that the video and its associated analysis was for the OBR and the OP was about FED. I can read and comprehend as well as anyone here. And as usual I do have an answer--

2006 NFHS Baseball Interpretations SITUATION 15: With a runner on third attempting to steal home, the pitch bounces off the plate, hits the catcher’s chest protector and rebounds back in front of the plate in a nice soft arc. The batter, seeing the ball back in front of the plate, hits the ball for a soft fly ball that falls over the second baseman. The defensive coach argues that this is batter interference while the offensive coach counters that since the ball was still technically a pitch, the batter has the right to hit it. RULING: This is batter interference. If the play started with one out, the runner from third would be declared out. If the play started with two outs, the batter would be declared out. The batter has the legal right to strike the pitch as it comes across the home plate area. He no longer has the right to bat the ball once it has passed home plate and subsequently bounces or caroms off someone or something. (7-3-5c Penalty)

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

[aaluck]

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.  

[WilsonFlyer]

10 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.  

I think you'd have a perfectly valid argument, but in this case, you're already picking it up by the dirty end. I'm not sure the best thing to do isn't just to put it down as quickly and peacefully as you can.