Jump to content

FED Follow-Through Interference Question


Recommended Posts

FED Rule set

R1, 0 outs batter with 2 strikes. 

R1 stealing, batter swings and misses at strike 3, F2 attempts to throw to second but the batters follow through contacts him and he drops the ball. 

Question is, can R1 be called out or just returned to 1B?

Casebook 7.3.5 Situation B says B3 is out and R1 is returned to first but makes no reference to the count.  Is there any difference if B3 strikes out and then there is follow-through interference preventing a play on R1?

See 7.3.5c and last sentence of penalty and 8.4.2g

Thanks!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I cannot totally agree with this post, @maven, with regards to a batter’s interference with a catcher’s throw.  In Fed, calling a second out (when the batter strikes out and then interferes with the c

Wait...a lawyer that doesn't want to continue an argument? Must be 2020!    

2014 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2'

2014 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

SITUATION 4: R1 on first base attempts to steal second base and is about halfway to second when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher causing him to drop the baseball. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. Since the pitch was a third strike and B2's interference prevented a possible double play, both B2 and R1 are declared out. (7-3-5c Penalty)

2011 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 4: With R2 on first base and one out, B3 swings and misses on a 1-2 fastball for strike three. R2 was stealing on the pitch and B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher’s ability to throw to second base. At the time of the interference, R2 was just over half way to second from first. RULING: In the umpire’s judgment, B3’s interference prevented the catcher from possibly throwing out R2 at second base. B3 is out for strike three and R2 is declared out because of B3’s interference. The half-inning is over. (7-3-5c Penalty)

SITUATION 5: With one out, R2 gets a great jump at first base and is just a couple of feet from second base when B3 strikes out. B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher, who drops the ball and cannot throw to second base. RULING: The ball is declared dead when play is no longer possible. B3 is out on strikes for out No. 2. Since the catcher had no possible play on R2 (being so close to second base at the time of the interference), R2 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

FED's "follow-through INT" is enforced just like any other kind of batter INT. If the batter is out on strikes, then the runner being played on is out for the INT. Otherwise, the batter is out for the INT and the runners return.

That's consistent with most codes' treatment of INT: the person guilty of INT is out unless already out for some other reason, in which case we get another runner.

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

If the batter is out on strikes, then the runner being played on is out for the INT. Otherwise, the batter is out for the INT and the runners return.

That's consistent with most codes' treatment of INT: the person guilty of INT is out unless already out for some other reason, in which case we get another runner.

I cannot totally agree with this post, @maven, with regards to a batter’s interference with a catcher’s throw.  In Fed, calling a second out (when the batter strikes out and then interferes with the catcher) against the runner being played upon is discretionary and requires the umpire to determine if the defense had a possibility of getting a double play “but for” the interference.  Under OBR, there is no discretion.

Compare, “(i)f 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,” (FED 7-3-5 Penalty) with, “(I)f the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw after the batter is out on strike three, the umpire shall call “Time” and the runner is declared out for the  batter’s interference.” (MLB Umpire Manual 2019, Section II, #66) (emphasis added)

Now, honestly, we teach our umpires to call a double play, when working FED ball, unless they are absolutely 100% convinced there was no possibility of a double play.  We teach this because that is the game participants’ expectation as that is the way it is called in every other code set.  But, by rule, FED is different than OBR and NCAA.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lawump said:

I cannot totally agree with this post, @maven, with regards to a batter’s interference with a catcher’s throw.  In Fed, calling a second out (when the batter strikes out and then interferes with the catcher) against the runner being played upon is discretionary and requires the umpire to determine if the defense had a possibility of getting a double play “but for” the interference.  Under OBR, there is no discretion.

 

We've discussed this "rule difference" before. My position is that FED's "discretion" is merely notional and could never make a difference on the field.

The reason is that there's a strict either/or here: either the batter hindered the defense in their effort to retire the runner, or he didn't.

If he hindered them, then a double play must have been possible (that's what was hindered), and we should call the double play.

If he did not hinder them, then it wasn't INT, and we should not call batter INT. 

As you know, merely contacting F2 is not an infraction: the operative concept is hindrance, and no hindrance = no INT. 

Thus, in no case could we properly rule batter INT (w/ strike 3) and return a runner without calling anyone out.

In practice FED draws a distinction without a difference. Hence, I never bother to mention it. Your teaching umpires to ignore it makes perfect sense to me (though I disagree with your stated rationale—expected call etc.).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

We've discussed this "rule difference" before. My position is that FED's "discretion" is merely notional and could never make a difference on the field.

 

I won't re-tread an old discussion (that I apparently missed).  LOL.  I'll just add that I see the merits of your argument, but I'm not sure my pro umpire school instructors would have agreed with it (at least in 1997...they certainly could have changed since then.)  But, in fact, the lawyer in me likes your argument/position as it seems very logical to me.

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

I won't re-tread an old discussion (that I apparently missed).  LOL.  I'll just add that I see the merits of your argument, but I'm not sure my pro umpire school instructors would have agreed with it (at least in 1997...they certainly could have changed since then.)  But, in fact, the lawyer in me likes your argument/position as it seems very logical to me.

Wait...a lawyer that doesn't want to continue an argument? Must be 2020!  :WTF

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I also agree with maven's reasoning:  "ART. 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." 

But I don't therefore understand Situation 3 above. If the runner is sliding into second when the batter swings, and his follow through then hits the catcher, without more, where's the hindrance? If there's no hindrance, then why are we sending R-1 back to 1st?  If there's no hindrance, there's no interference, and therefore no dead ball. So, why is R-1 going back to 1st? If there is hindrance, there's interference, and we grab two outs. I'm missing something, and not sure what it is I'm missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Recontra said:

I also agree with maven's reasoning:  "ART. 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." 

But I don't therefore understand Situation 3 above. If the runner is sliding into second when the batter swings, and his follow through then hits the catcher, without more, where's the hindrance? If there's no hindrance, then why are we sending R-1 back to 1st?  If there's no hindrance, there's no interference, and therefore no dead ball. So, why is R-1 going back to 1st? If there is hindrance, there's interference, and we grab two outs. I'm missing something, and not sure what it is I'm missing.

What you're missing is FED's lack of logic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Matt said:

What you're missing is FED's lack of logic.

This kind of thing doesn't happen because FED's illogical.

It happens because somebody with juice at NFHS decided to die on this particular hill and make it "his" rule forever.

When that person attrits out of the system, FED will quietly drop the case play.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

This kind of thing doesn't happen because FED's illogical.

It happens because somebody with juice at NFHS decided to die on this particular hill and make it "his" rule forever.

When that person attrits out of the system, FED will quietly drop the case play.

You quoted my original thought somehow. The difference is that you left the name out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Recontra, here’s how Carl Childress explains (2016 BRD, section 287, p. 187) how FED rules on this question in the following play—

Play 144-287:  R1, 1 out, full count. R1 is moving on the pitch. B1 strikes out and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out R1, who slides in safely at second. Ruling:  In FED, if the catcher without the interference had a chance to retire R1, R1 is out. But if in the judgment of the umpire the catcher had no chance for the out, R1 returns to first. In NCAA/OBR, R1 is automatically out.

Childress explains in an earlier note in the same section—“The penalty for interference at 7-3-5 Penalty (runners return TOP) contradicts the penalty at 8-2-9 (runners remain TOI). But because it is virtually impossible for a runner to advance a base before the batter interferes with the catcher, the conflict will rarely (never?) be a factor in your games…”

So let not your heart be troubled. In the extremely rare case that a second out is not awarded the offense is still penalized (by rule) for the batter’s interference by sending the runner back to his TOP base.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 9:10 AM, maven said:

 

It happens because somebody with juice at NFHS decided to die on this particular hill and make it "his" rule forever.

 

Not me! 

I actually tried to change this rule to the OBR rule.  I didn't get very far.  In fact, it didn't even come up for a formal vote, as I recall, as there was little appetite in the room to change it.  So, it is more than one person.

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, lawump said:

Not me! 

I actually tried to change this rule to the OBR rule.  I didn't get very far.  In fact, it didn't even come up for a formal vote, as I recall, as there was little appetite in the room to change it.  So, it is more than one person.

Sometimes mere "improvements" like this get pushed back: there are priorities that have to be done this year, there are things that need to be fixed, and there are clarifications. 

And of course there are only so many changes it's safe to make in a single season, without blowing up everyone's head.

Also: this is a rule that does little harm. The only situation this provision is ever invoked is the one where the batter contacts F2 but the runner is already sliding into 2B. If the umpire judges this "INT," then we can say it's a judgment call (and no protest). The penalty is mild (O doesn't lose a runner or an out). Plus, when F2 contacted, it can be a hard sell merely to send the runner back and call nobody out.

So it's not bad enough to demand change, and those who actually like it will get their way.

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...