Ortiz's Weird Double Play

Idabomb333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2007
202
There's no way the conclusion about what happens if Ortiz hadn't just struck out could be right. The interferer isn't the one called out in that rule, and it's nonsense to say that on strike 1, bumping the catcher's helmet on a backswing means Ortiz is out simply because X was running. I don't know where the rule is, but there's another rule about batter interference when the catcher is trying to throw out a base runner. At least part of that rule involves whether the batter is still in the box.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
I think Cuz is half right here.

A backswing hitting a catcher that does NOT result in strike 3 (with a runner moving) is not interference, simply dead ball with runner returning to first. Video here:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v8272771/detlad-manny-interferes-with-his-backswing

From rulebook:
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
And this is from the Umpire's Manual (this may be older version of manual, they are hard to find online, and the number changes. Another had it as rule 7.14, but the wording was the same):

6.9 BACKSWING (FOLLOW-THROUGH) HITS CATCHER
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire's judgment unintentionally hits the
catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is
still in the batter's box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead,
however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation
where the catcher's initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the
same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter
would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and
the batter declared out.
This interpretation applies even if the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner.
That is, if the batter is in the batter's box and his normal backswing or follow-through
unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, "Time"
is called and runners return (unless the catcher's initial throw retires the runner).
Upshot--if that was strike 2, runner just returns, Papi's AB continues.
 
Last edited:

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
Do you have a link to the umpire manual, by chance? It is a useful compendium to the rule book.

The rule book, as I have found, doesn't always make sense.
 

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
Also, let me just add that I appreciate the comments. We strive to be correct, but sometimes we are going to make interpretation errors as well. And, in terms of the theoretical play, It appears I did make an error.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
I cannot find a link to manual, just quotes from umpire websites. It appears it cost about $15 online. I'll keep looking.
 

rsmith7

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
57
DD is correct about the ruling and umpire manuals are very hard to get a hold of. Unlikely an electronic official version exists.
 
Last edited:

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,365
Yeah, well, tell the folks that write the rulebook.
It's just so weird. They're 2 very distinct things. It's like using using "ascending" and "descending" to describe someone moving on a staircase and pretending they have the same meaning.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
It's just so weird. They're 2 very distinct things. It's like using using "ascending" and "descending" to describe someone moving on a staircase and pretending they have the same meaning.
Serious question though, have backswing and follow through always had their current accepted definitions? Not sure when this particular rule entered the rulebook but it's always worth remembering that some of this stuff was written down in the mid-1800s and that could definitely lead to some odd word usage.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Serious question though, have backswing and follow through always had their current accepted definitions? Not sure when this particular rule entered the rulebook but it's always worth remembering that some of this stuff was written down in the mid-1800s and that could definitely lead to some odd word usage.
Good question, especially considering that a modern baseball swing generally doesn't have a "backswing" in the sense that a golf swing or a slap shot does. The bat already starts at or near what would be the end point of that kind of backswing. Is this language a clue that early baseball swings did include a backswing component in the usual sense? Or does it suggest that at the time the rule was written, "backswing" meant the same thing as "follow-through", i.e. the part of the swing after the bat has passed its most forward-facing point and is on its way back toward the catcher?
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
Good question, especially considering that a modern baseball swing generally doesn't have a "backswing" in the sense that a golf swing or a slap shot does. The bat already starts at or near what would be the end point of that kind of backswing. Is this language a clue that early baseball swings did include a backswing component in the usual sense? Or does it suggest that at the time the rule was written, "backswing" meant the same thing as "follow-through", i.e. the part of the swing after the bat has passed its most forward-facing point and is on its way back toward the catcher?
Well, I've done a decent amount of research and reading on early baseball and although I haven't come across anything specific either way, nothing I've seen points to there ever having been a backswing in the modern sense. That's why I am off the opinion that backswing in this context reverts to the latter part of the swing.

Is there a searchable version of mlb rules that can be accessed easily? I'm curious about any other references to backswing.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA
Is there a searchable version of mlb rules that can be accessed easily? I'm curious about any other references to backswing.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_rules.jsp

No other references to backswing. That one isn't in the rule per se; it's in the "Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) Comment (Rule 6.06(c) and (d) Comment)".

The Comments weren't added to the rule book until 1977 and are of more recent origin than the actual rules, so it's unlikely that it's a vestigial reference to some weird old swing mechanic.
 

rsmith7

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
57
The NCAA book addresses this play directly. It is my understanding that the MLB interpretation is the same.
"
  1. If a batter swings and misses a pitch and the backswing is so forceful that it hits the catcher as the pitch is caught, or if the batter hits the ball again, the pitch shall be called a strike, the ball is dead (no interference) and no runner shall advance on the play;

    (1) If the interference occurs in a situation where the batter normally would become a runner because of a third strike not held by the catcher, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out. (No run- ner shall advance on interference.)

    (2) If the catcher has possession of the ball and is in the act of throwing or preparing to throw and the batter interferes with the catcher, the batter shall be declared out provided the throw does not retire the runner. If the interference occurs after the third strike, the batter and runner shall be called out and it will be ruled a double play.
This is from the 2005 book, and is a relatively recent addition.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
The NCAA book addresses this play directly. It is my understanding that the MLB interpretation is the same.
"
  1. If a batter swings and misses a pitch and the backswing is so forceful that it hits the catcher as the pitch is caught, or if the batter hits the ball again, the pitch shall be called a strike, the ball is dead (no interference) and no runner shall advance on the play;

    (1) If the interference occurs in a situation where the batter normally would become a runner because of a third strike not held by the catcher, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out. (No run- ner shall advance on interference.)

    (2) If the catcher has possession of the ball and is in the act of throwing or preparing to throw and the batter interferes with the catcher, the batter shall be declared out provided the throw does not retire the runner. If the interference occurs after the third strike, the batter and runner shall be called out and it will be ruled a double play.
This is from the 2005 book, and is a relatively recent addition.
Based on that, it would seem that is just an odd use of the word backswing that may be specific to baseball.