Follow through interference

[BLWizzRanger]

NFHS.

So I had my very first follow through interference (FTI) the other night.  R2 stealing third and F2 went to throw the ball behind the right-handed batter (RHB).  The RHB's bat, while in motion, caught the F2's hand.  Looking at a video CCS put together, I got it right (though I butchered calling the FTI 'backswing' interference...ooof). The call was right though.

So when in my second guessing phase after the game, I started thinking that the F2 moved behind the RHB to throw and that was the impetus for contact.  It wasn't like a throw to second or first where it would be almost impossible for the F2 to move into the bat path with a RHB. 

So, should the judgement be made if the fielder hit the bat or the bat hit the fielder?  Is there a judgement that needs made that the F2 moved further behind the batter than one would expect causing the interference?

I know with OBS, its send back the runners and no interference  I need to look up NCAA but, IMHO, the judgement aspect would be the same for all three codes.

What's your thoughts?

[SH0102]

OBR and NCAA agree on this, NFHS does not.

In NFHS, if the batters swing contacts the catcher you’d have an impossible sell for why it isn’t INT unless you deem the catchers actions intentional (ie, he dove into the bat to draw contact)

Do not start delving into “did he step too far?” and “wouldn’t happen if he was throwing to 2nd”

Stick to the rule . In NFHS the batter has an obligation to control their swing, I prefer the ncaa/OBR rule but it is what it is.

Unless the catcher intentionally drew contact, you get INT on FTI in HS

Edit: The FTI needs to INT with catchers ability to throw. If he gets throw off clean and then the swing comes back and hits them, it’s not INT

[Tborze]

4 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

NFHS.

So I had my very first follow through interference (FTI) the other night.  R2 stealing third and F2 went to throw the ball behind the right-handed batter (RHB).  The RHB's bat, while in motion, caught the F2's hand.  Looking at a video CCS put together, I got it right (though I butchered calling the FTI 'backswing' interference...ooof). The call was right though.

So when in my second guessing phase after the game, I started thinking that the F2 moved behind the RHB to throw and that was the impetus for contact.  It wasn't like a throw to second or first where it would be almost impossible for the F2 to move into the bat path with a RHB. 

So, should the judgement be made if the fielder hit the bat or the bat hit the fielder?  Is there a judgement that needs made that the F2 moved further behind the batter than one would expect causing the interference?

I know with OBS, its send back the runners and no interference  I need to look up NCAA but, IMHO, the judgement aspect would be the same for all three codes.

What's your thoughts?

I would agree a good indicator to judge this would be did bat hit catcher/catcher hit bat. 
But ultimately for FED, the batter is responsible for his follow through, unless you judge the actions of F2 intentional to draw an INT call. 
 

[johnnyg08]

Don't try to be too cute with this. 

This sounds like follow through interference. Clean umpiring says to grab this. 

Occam's razor...which essentially means that the simplest path to the answer is your answer. 

Batter is responsible for controlling their swing, including the follow through. 

Grab the out. 

[maven]

FED does not have "follow-through INT" in the same sense that OBR does, which is to say, it's not a separate infraction with its own distinct penalty.

FED treats contact from the swing that hinders F2's play on a runner as ordinary batter INT. Enforce accordingly.

The question seems to concern the judgment of hindrance, which is difficult to assess without video. The batter is entitled to swing at the pitch while in the box without liability for INT. But the timing sounds off: if the B swings at the pitch, the swing should be done before F2 rises to throw. So that makes the description in the OP suspicious for INT.

[BLWizzRanger]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

 But the timing sounds off: if the B swings at the pitch, the swing should be done before F2 rises to throw. So that makes the description in the OP suspicious for INT.

Well, yes and no, right?

While not the same type of play as the F2 was throwing to 2nd in this clip, F2's anticipation had them in the contact area at the same time as the follow-through. In my play, with the F2's anticipation in making a throw to third, I can't see anything else but NFHS batter interference of the follow-through type.

Further, the clip below, with the F2 setting up inside closer to the contact area, any movement of the F2 to throw to third would have had contact.

https://www.closecallsports.com/2023/05/ozuna-hits-smith-on-backswing-what-can.html

In my case, I am convinced now that it would have been extremely unlikely the swing would have finished by the time the F2 threw the ball. 

Thanks guys.