Delayed swing by batter on steal attempts

[Richvee]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/904226990863276?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw
 

This tactic seems to be gaining popularity. I’ve seen the videos, and saw it happen today. I did not call BI on my play. My batter took a half hearted “ golf swing” that didn’t come close to hindering the catcher. The pitch was a strike anyway so I didn’t have to rule a swing or not. 
 

My question. This delayed swing is a blatant attempt to hinder/ distract F2. Can we grab BI for intent alone? I think the delayed swing needs to actually interfere. Not just attempt to.

Also, if you rule no BI, ( or the throw retires the runner) and the ball is outside the strike zone, are you grabbing a swinging strike no matter how late the swing? 
Thoughts???

edit to add- I’m in no way interested in criticizing/ critiquing this PU’s  lack of mechanics. 

[The Man in Blue]

Can't see what you posted, but I get the gist of it.

I called it during a 16u softball national tournament last year.  Might have been a little easier to call because the batter not only swung after the ball was in the mitt, but she did a little pirouette to get the bat back out there a second time.

If it isn't a "strike at the ball" it can only be one other thing.  Call it if it hinders or impedes the catcher.  Taking space away from the catcher by having the bat out there seems like an impediment to me.

[Senor Azul]

There is precious little written on this subject. I did, however, find the following in Referee magazine in a rules quiz issued in November 2014:

Very Late Swing 

Play: R1 is attempting to steal second. The pitch to B3 is in the dirt, so B3 does not swing immediately. However, once the ball is past him, B3 waves the bat at the ball. Ruling:  If the ball is clearly past, the batter cannot be charged with a strike. However, he can be charged with interference if he hinders F2's attempt to throw the ball (NFHS 7-3-5c; NCAA 7-11f; pro 6.03a-3).

 

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

There is precious little written on this subject. I did, however, find the following in Referee magazine in a rules quiz issued in November 2014:

Very Late Swing 

Play: R1 is attempting to steal second. The pitch to B3 is in the dirt, so B3 does not swing immediately. However, once the ball is past him, B3 waves the bat at the ball. Ruling:  If the ball is clearly past, the batter cannot be charged with a strike. However, he can be charged with interference if he hinders F2's attempt to throw the ball (NFHS 7-3-5c; NCAA 7-11f; pro 6.03a-3).

 

Interesting the don't want a strike called. Just using "spirit of the game" as a guide, the batter swung the bat for one reason....to mess up F2. ( I understand that letter of law, this is also why we wouldn't call a strike) If he failed at hindering, he goes "unpunished" for an unsportsmanlike act. Seems we should at least nail him with a strike. 

In the future I will set the bar extremally low for what I consider a hinderance in such a situation. 

[dumbdumb]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

 

In the future I will set the bar extremally low for what I consider a hinderance in such a situation.

seems like they want to leave it to the old, "in my judgment" rather than this to be a given a more concise explanation.

i am sure you and others can think of similar situations where the spirit of the game reasoning tends to go unpunished or too lightly punished, or even to heavily punished, on an infraction committed.

of course, if they get into a situation where they feel compelled to be/word it more concise, (Joe West confiscating a note pad--didn't that cause a more concise ruling to be implemented), then you got a chance of a more concise ruling, rather than an in my judgment ruling.

now if we get too concise/analytics, ai etc. etc. and all rule books of the game have perfect wording and case book examples worded so the whole world knows exactly what it says and looks like, and granny in the 400th row can both see it perfectly and understand it perfectly no matter how she wants to interpret it in her mind, how are we ever going to have a difference of opinion and an ejection. of course the rule and case books will both be the size of the grand canyon, oops, the 17 volumes of marienbad my love. i want my mtv/oops ejections at games i go to sometimes.

[Richvee]

 Bottom line is I think it’s becoming more prevalent and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a new interp or POE in the coming years. 

[SH0102]

Just thinking out loud here… by rule; a batter is permitted to swing, and “any movement other than a swing that hinders the catchers ability to make a play…” is batters INT.

So if you call this a swing, I don’t think you can grab INT. Don’t call it a swing and you can. It’s a movement that doesn’t qualify as a swing (since it wasn’t an attempt to hit the pitch), so makes them liable for interference.

Play stupid games…win stupid prizes

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, Richvee said:

Interesting the don't want a strike called. Just using "spirit of the game" as a guide, the batter swung the bat for one reason....to mess up F2. ( I understand that letter of law, this is also why we wouldn't call a strike) If he failed at hindering, he goes "unpunished" for an unsportsmanlike act. Seems we should at least nail him with a strike. 

In the future I will set the bar extremally low for what I consider a hinderance in such a situation. 

 

I fully agree with you that this needs to be discouraged and nipped in the bud.  I have no issue with "setting the bar low," but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "unpunished because he failed."  There are lots of interference and obstruction instances where it isn't anything unless it is something.

If you want to, call the strike.  Then let the coach explain to you why it wasn't ... 😈

"He was protecting the runner, not swinging at the ball, Blue!  You can't call that a strike!"

"OK.  He's out for interference then."

[Catch18]

What about this eval: The batter has a right to attempt to hit, with unimpeded action, the pitch. It ceased to be a pitch once it’s caught. I’d say there’s no right to swing at that point, without penalty. Proof: We wouldn’t be talking about this with bases empty.

[Senor Azul]

I think I have found something much more applicable and relevant to the OP.

From the 2006 NFHS online interpretations:

Situation 15...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...

[Senor Azul]

And found more--from the 2019-2020 College Baseball Study Guide (p. 158):

Although unwritten, a batter loses the right to swing at the pitch when it first passes the plate. Thus a pitch that touches the bat on the follow through or after deflecting off the catcher or umpire is not a batted ball. Likewise, if the batter is hit by such a deflected ball, it is not considered "hit by pitch."

[beerguy55]

On 5/28/2023 at 9:30 PM, Senor Azul said:

And found more--from the 2019-2020 College Baseball Study Guide (p. 158):

Although unwritten, a batter loses the right to swing at the pitch when it first passes the plate. 

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:08 PM, Senor Azul said:

Situation 15...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...

Considering the batter's box extends two feet behind the tip of home plate, these are awful interpretations.  Take this to its illogical conclusion the catcher would be absolved of CI as long as the ball and his glove are behind home plate.

Even then, your bat could extend beyond the back of the box in the course of a natural swing.

Past (or caught by - careful here on CI) the catcher or catcher's box would be more appropriate.

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/28/2023 at 8:44 AM, Richvee said:

Interesting the don't want a strike called. Just using "spirit of the game" as a guide, the batter swung the bat for one reason....to mess up F2. ( I understand that letter of law, this is also why we wouldn't call a strike) If he failed at hindering, he goes "unpunished" for an unsportsmanlike act. Seems we should at least nail him with a strike. 

In the future I will set the bar extremally low for what I consider a hinderance in such a situation. 

Here's another thought.  The first time it happens, go to the coach and tell him/her that what happened was clearly unsportsmanlike.  And, if it happens again,  you just might eject or remand the coach to the dugout for not controlling his/her team.  That ought to light a fire!!!

[ArchAngel72]

I would say this is easier to call at 13U plus but 12 U down.. I know LL would have a real hard tome with me calling that on some really unskilled 10U who's in his/her/their 1st year playing and Yeah we do have some 12U new people that would fall into this now.

Ugh I still got 2 12U kids throwing the bat as they swing.. 

 

But anyway yeah nail them for BI its nothing but that imho

 

[beerguy55]

54 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I would say this is easier to call at 13U plus but 12 U down.. I know LL would have a real hard tome with me calling that on some really unskilled 10U who's in his/her/their 1st year playing and Yeah we do have some 12U new people that would fall into this now.

Ugh I still got 2 12U kids throwing the bat as they swing.. 

 

But anyway yeah nail them for BI its nothing but that imho

 

Agreed, 12 and under...even some of the older kids if it's their first year...very common to see swings happen after the catcher has caught the ball.

And at least they're swinging...'cause the other reaction is simply deer in the headlights and they just never swing...we want to encourage and celebrate the kids taking a rip at it, even if it's very late.

[Mussgrass]

I umpire in a 12U house league. I will take every strike I can get.

[834k3r]

On 5/28/2023 at 12:55 PM, SH0102 said:

Just thinking out loud here… by rule; a batter is permitted to swing, and “any movement other than a swing that hinders the catchers ability to make a play…” is batters INT.

So if you call this a swing, I don’t think you can grab INT. Don’t call it a swing and you can. It’s a movement that doesn’t qualify as a swing (since it wasn’t an attempt to hit the pitch), so makes them liable for interference.

Play stupid games…win stupid prizes

Okay, so I'm thinking out loud here as well.

How is a late swing (regardless of perceived intent) different from a swing (say the BR is on-time, but swung under the ball because of that launch angle fascination) that pulls the batter across home plate and interferes with a throw to 2B? Mechanically, they're both swings and misses.

Edit:  I'm talking about late swings before the pitch is in F2's mitt.

Edited May 31, 2023 by 834k3r
clarification

[ArchAngel72]

34 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

I umpire in a 12U house league. I will take every strike I can get.

Oh yeah I did not mean I would not call it a swing and a strike merely its not BI at that level not unless they hit the catcher  or something while they make the throw

 

[scrounge]

Saw it called - and fully agreed - in a game this weekend when I was BU. Like this one, the batter 'swung' after the catcher already caught the ball and was on his way up to throw. By rule, once the catcher secures the ball, the pitch is over - can't very well strike at a pitch that's already over. No prob nailing this as BI if it even remotely impacts the play.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

Saw it called - and fully agreed - in a game this weekend when I was BU. Like this one, the batter 'swung' after the catcher already caught the ball and was on his way up to throw. By rule, once the catcher secures the ball, the pitch is over - can't very well strike at a pitch that's already over. No prob nailing this as BI if it even remotely impacts the play.

And bonus points if it's strike 3. 😁

[The Man in Blue]

18 hours ago, Richvee said:

And bonus points if it's strike 3. 😁

Well now, that’s just dumb!  🤣