Skip to main content

11 replies

Multiple interference calls in one play question

dw8mandw8man10+ posts
In a game yesterday, we had the following:

R1 on first. On the pitch, R1 breaks for second. Batter swings and misses. On the back swing, the batter hits the catcher in the back with his back swing after the catcher has caught the ball and has started to step to throw to second. After a slight hesitation, the catcher continues to move forward to make the throw. After finishing back swing, batter's mommentum carries him into the path of the catcher. The catch slams full force into the batter while attempting to make throw but hits the deck instead.

The Ump had two interferences calls. The first one on the back swing hitting the catcher and a second one on the batter interfering with the catcher.

He ruled the first interference on the back swing was to be enforced and put the runner back on first.

My interpretation was the batter interference prevented the catcher from making the play and we'll never know if the back swing interference would have impacted the play.

If the catcher continues with the play and then is interfered by the batter which prevented him from even making a throw, how can you say the back swing interference prevented him from making the play?

The Ump was adamant he HAD to enforce the back swing interference first eventhough he agreed the batter interference is what prevented the catcher from making the play.

Could he have not just waved off or ignored the first interference and ruled on or enforced the second?
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by dw8man:
In a game yesterday, we had the following:

R1 on first. On the pitch, R1 breaks for second. Batter swings and misses. On the back swing, the batter hits the catcher in the back with his back swing after the catcher has caught the ball and has started to step to throw to second. After a slight hesitation, the catcher continues to move forward to make the throw. After finishing back swing, batter's mommentum carries him into the path of the catcher. The catch slams full force into the batter while attempting to make throw but hits the deck instead.

The Ump had two interferences calls. The first one on the back swing hitting the catcher and a second one on the batter interfering with the catcher.

He ruled the first interference on the back swing was to be enforced and put the runner back on first.

My interpretation was the batter interference prevented the catcher from making the play and we'll never know if the back swing interference would have impacted the play.

If the catcher continues with the play and then is interfered by the batter which prevented him from even making a throw, how can you say the back swing interference prevented him from making the play?

The Ump was adamant he HAD to enforce the back swing interference first eventhough he agreed the batter interference is what prevented the catcher from making the play.

Could he have not just waved off or ignored the first interference and ruled on or enforced the second?


Assuming FED, he blew it. Backswing interference is an out in FED. OBR, he got it right.

Interference (except batter's interference) is an immediate dead ball.
Last edited by Matt13
dw8mandw8man10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Matt13:
quote:
Originally posted by dw8man:
It was a JUCO game....


He got it right.


Thanks!

If only he would have explained it as simply as you did!

Over hearing the conversation between him and the Coach, he kept saying he had to enforce the back swing interference before the batter interference and said nothing about it being a dead ball.

I think had he said the back swing interference caused the ball to be dead, the conversation with the Coach would have lasted about 2 seconds......
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Backswing interference does not cause the ball to be immediately dead if the catcher is in the act of throwing. If subsequent illegal (not backswing) interference prevented the catcher from making the throw, I would call the batter out in the INT.


I'm not so sure I buy that, and if I do, it'd be under one circumstance--that the backswing interference and batter interference occur on the same throw attempt.
dw8mandw8man10+ posts
So, the catcher was hit as he was coming up and starting to step into the throw. The bat hit him in the back which caused a slight hesitation from the catcher but he continued forward and collided with the batter.

So, let me see if I get this:

It would be a dead ball if the ump determined the catcher stopped his initial throwing attempted when the catcher was hit by the back swing?

However, if the ump determined the catcher didn't stop but continued his initial throwing motion and then had batter interference, the back swing interference wouldn't cause a dead ball and the batter interference would play out.

IMO... I didn't see the catcher stop his attempt to try to make a throw when he was hit in the back. I did see him slightly hesitate/react to the hit but his actions during the play were what I would consider still part of an initial attempt. When he got hit he was in the process of raising his arm to throw and stepping forward. His arm didn't drop or pump (like a QB will do). He just had a slight hitch when contact was made.

Without having a video of the play, I know no one can say for sure but I appreciate the information!
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by dash_riprock:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt13:

I'm not so sure I buy that, and if I do, it'd be under one circumstance--that the backswing interference and batter interference occur on the same throw attempt.

The NCAA rule is clear on that. It must be the initial throw (attempt) or the ball is dead.


Yes, the one circumstance in which I buy it.
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
In the OP, the backswing interference occurs first, and the batter subsequently interfered. The NCAA rule is clear that if the batter is in the box at the time of the backswing interference, the ball is dead unless the throw retires the runner. The only way to get batter interference is if the batter was out of the box at the time of the backswing interference.

Therefore, I think
quote:
If subsequent illegal (not backswing) interference prevented the catcher from making the throw, I would call the batter out in the INT.
would not be the correct call, since "subsequent" seems to imply an order to the events.
D dash_riprock1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
In the OP, the backswing interference occurs first, and the batter subsequently interfered. The NCAA rule is clear that if the batter is in the box at the time of the backswing interference, the ball is dead unless the throw retires the runner.

"Unless the throw retires a runner" means as long as the catcher is making a throw, the ball stays live.
quote:

The only way to get batter interference is if the batter was out of the box at the time of the backswing interference.
Since the ball is live, and the catcher is attempting a throw, the provisions of 7-11(f) apply. Stepping out of the box (after the weak INT) and interfering with the catcher's throw would be one example of INT, but as you know, the batter is not completely free to interfere if he is in his box.

quote:
Therefore, I think
quote:
If subsequent illegal (not backswing) interference prevented the catcher from making the throw, I would call the batter out in the INT.
would not be the correct call, since "subsequent" seems to imply an order to the events.

I agree with you here. The weak INT and subsequent 7-11(f) INT definitely are separate events, and the rules for both should be properly applied.
Last edited by dash_riprock

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×