Unusual plays
- Thread starter AB in DC
- Start date
Yes, on back swing interference, the ball is dead and no one is called out.
In other cases where batter interfered with throw, the batter is out and runner returns to base.
Last edited:
But don’t you guys know that the Yankees should get the benefit of every call even those inconsistent with the rule book? <duck>
Heh, a very similar play just happened in TOR/LAA, Bichette at the plate, runner at second. Bichette swung and missed and hit the catcher on the backswing, the catcher was trying to pick the runner off of second but was unable to even make a throw, so they called interference and Bichette was out. That was my point originally (having nothing to do with it affecting the Yankees, @BroodsSexton , but you probably knew that), if the ump calls interference, someone should be out.
So what was the difference in the rulings or the plays? Was one adjudicated correctly and the other incorrect? Or were there enough situational differences to justify/validate each call?
I have no idea, it just seems like it should always result in an out, the runner or the batter. If Bichette was called out for doing it, the batter the other night should have been also.
Can‘t find the Yankees example you referred to, but this explanation seems to be that Bichette stepped out of the box on his follow through. Also, it’s kind of crazy that I had to find this on YouTube rather than the MLB app, they need to include stuff like this in their highlight vids.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ECpeiH57t8
I didn’t find video but this was the play (in the Wed 3-1 NYY win):
“In the first inning of the game, Pete Alonso was called for interference, negating Francisco Lindor’s steal of second base. Alonso’s backswing hit catcher Kyle Higashioka, prompting plate umpire Doug Eddings to make the call. “
“In the first inning of the game, Pete Alonso was called for interference, negating Francisco Lindor’s steal of second base. Alonso’s backswing hit catcher Kyle Higashioka, prompting plate umpire Doug Eddings to make the call. “
Just watched it, Alonso never left the batter box, and certainly didn’t interfere to the degree Bichette did (literally stepping in front of the throw).
I have no idea what the rule is on back swings. Seems like that should be on the catcher.
And the quoted portion isn’t quite right, it wasn’t interference because of the backswing, but because he stepped out of the batters box in front of the throw.
edit - as @joe dokes says, it’s a dead ball.
Rule 6:06 Comment: 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 before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
Last edited:
That Bichette play is text book. He comes out and blocks the catcher's way. Doesn't get much easier to call than that. The bat coming around and making contact is immaterial there.
Backswing interference often has little to no impact on the play. I don't really see why these actions should be lumped together.
Backswing interference often has little to no impact on the play. I don't really see why these actions should be lumped together.
I should drop this but it's easy to say they're different kinds of interference when they flash the rule on the screen during the video like that, but during the live game, they just showed Bichette hitting him on the back swing and interference being called, which was when/why I posted about it.
Bichette stepping in front of the plate so blatantly helps clear up the confusion, but I still think the rule for the other one should be an out, not a dead ball (and I am actually rooting for the Yankees to lose games until the deadline so that maybe they'll sell, @BroodsSexton).
I’m not so sure they “called interference” in the Yankees game, so much as made the ruling I quoted above. There’s no mention of “interference” in the score sheet, it’s just Michael Kay saying that. Regardless, the rule clearly states it’s a dead ball.
Pretend Bichette didn’t hit him with the backswing. Because it had nothing to do with the interference call.
Wow
How is it okay for his coach to be chasing him down the line, basically helping block a throw home?
View: https://twitter.com/TalkinBaseball_/status/1691921965039403258
Luke Raley hits a crazy inside-the-park HR in SF
Luke Raley hits a crazy inside-the-park HR in SF
Last edited:
Luke Raley hits a crazy inside-the-park HR in SF
[/QUOTE]
As a sidebar, one of my favorite positions to play in The Show is RF for the Giants, because I feel the game does a good job of simulating all of those weird caroms. (Also because it is fun to hear the ball go "plunk" when you hit it into the cove...)
[/QUOTE]
As a sidebar, one of my favorite positions to play in The Show is RF for the Giants, because I feel the game does a good job of simulating all of those weird caroms. (Also because it is fun to hear the ball go "plunk" when you hit it into the cove...)
I would have touched home and then try to get to first again. In the very earliest versions of the game, I believe this was allowed?
So there's a situation where if the left fielder does a half hearted backup of the play; or no backup at all, he can most likely grab the carom.
I totally forgot that the first use of replay in baseball was in 1999 when umpire Frank Pulli took it upon himself to check video playback from one of the ESPN cameras to determine if the Marlins' Cliff Floyd had homered. this was of course unsanctioned and the NL president at the time gave him a chewing out
https://www.mlb.com/video/floyd-s-home-run-overturned
An SI piece from 2020 recapping this whole ordeal
https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/the-day-instant-replay-made-its-way-into-baseballs-national-consciousness
https://www.mlb.com/video/floyd-s-home-run-overturned
An SI piece from 2020 recapping this whole ordeal
https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/the-day-instant-replay-made-its-way-into-baseballs-national-consciousness
Hard to believe that not a single member of the crew knew the rule or called for a powwow to tell that umpire how badly he screwed up and reverse the call. It might be a rare play but equipment not counting as a body part there should be a pretty clear and simple rule to retain.
I suspect that if the runner removes a shoe and use it to extend a hand, the rule would apply. Or if he literally slid head-first (as opposed to hands-first) and touched the base with his helmet while it was attached to his head, he'd be safe.
Generally speaking the glove and cleats are enveloping the body so kind of one in the same no? In the above case the helmet isn't enveloping the head so not quite the same.
That did make me wonder about a what if play. A fielder has the ball in his bare hand and for whatever reason he's on the ground and has to reach out to tag the base with his glove - safe or out? I know I've seen plays that required a tag and the fielder tagged the runner with a glove not containing the ball and the runner was correctly ruled safe. I can't remember seeing an example of my scenario.
When used as intended, equipment is part of the body. So if he was wearing the helmet and overslid the bag and ended up with his helmet (on his head) resting on the base, he’s safe.
However, when equipment is used for reasons other than it’s stated purpose - like intentionally removing your helmet so it no longer provides protection and then using it to extend your reach to a base - it is not.
I think I have seen that. The runner is out. (unless he puts his hat or shoe into his glove to extend his reach)
I want to see a player take off his shirt and use it like a rolled up towel to extend their reach!
I get it, that makes sense. So if the runner is carrying his helmet because he caught it as it was falling off and a fielder tags him on that helmet that he is carrying, is he out?
I’m actually laughing at this question because its a good one and I don’t know.
I would think that the answer is no, but I’m almost sure he’d be called out anyway.
I figured that would be the call given the "equipment is part of the body" theory but I can't remember seeing it happen.I think I have seen that. The runner is out. (unless he puts his hat or shoe into his glove to extend his reach)
Is there a limit on the size of the oven mitts the runners use to protect their fingers? if you made that thing 3 feet long, imagine how many more bases you could steal.
Manny Ramirez's helmet flew off his head all the time. I'm imagining a scenario where a fielder tagged the helmet as it was falling off Manny's head.
Or imagine how many double plays you could break up:
View: https://twitter.com/TalkinYanks/status/1784670640315802021
It was a tie game when he oven-mitted that throw, NY went on to score 7 more runs that inning.
Just following in the time-honored tradition of playing the "who, me? I'm innocent" baserunning stylings of Yankees past.
I looked at the rules to see about ways to answer these questions. I didn't find anything satisfactory, but the rules are really organized in a counterintuitive way. There are rules about the allowed sizes of fielding gloves for different positions. But that's all I could find. Again, hard to know where to look because of how the rules are organized. They could really use a top to bottom re-configuration.
There was a play the other night I've never seen before: an defensive penalty where the offense accepted -- but could have declined -- it.
Reds/Padres.
Pads had 1st and 3rd, 1 out. Batter grounds out, run scores. Catcher's interference is called on the swing. Padres are given the choice to accept or decline the penalty, choose to accept it, run comes off the board, now it's bases loaded, 1 out. Next batter clears the bases.
Run expectancy matrix says it's the right call, too.
2 outs, runner on second is .305 (plus the run that's already scored, so 1.305). Bases loaded, 1 out is 1.520.
Reds/Padres.
Pads had 1st and 3rd, 1 out. Batter grounds out, run scores. Catcher's interference is called on the swing. Padres are given the choice to accept or decline the penalty, choose to accept it, run comes off the board, now it's bases loaded, 1 out. Next batter clears the bases.
Run expectancy matrix says it's the right call, too.
2 outs, runner on second is .305 (plus the run that's already scored, so 1.305). Bases loaded, 1 out is 1.520.
So, that play is subject to a very heavy debate by umpires, as I understand it. The debate is over whether or not to alert the manager that he has a choice. Somewhere in some officials forums or internet thing, there was a very active debate, with the prevailing view being that because of the language of the rule or comment, it is up to the manager to know the rule. So the umpire enforces the catchers' interference and then needs to wait to see what the manager wants to do. Others take the view that in situations where the manager may prefer to decline. The MLB comment gives two examples -- sac fly and sac bunt.
Do you know how the ump handled in the reds pads game?
It was this game:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN202404300.shtml
The broadcast booth saw the interference signal right away. Shildt was out there discussing with the ump very quickly - I don't think we can know who initiated the conversation about if he'd accept it or not.
A valid question with the current uniforms could be: if you over slide but your pants rip and the trailing scrap stays on the base, are you safe?