The catcher pulls up at the last moment. Is that because he senses the batter and alters his movement to avoid a collision, or because he so misplayed the ball that he gave up at that point? I can't be sure, but since it could be because of the former I'm inclined to rule that the batter interfered with the catcher.
Inconclusive from the video angle if it was fair or foul, but I don't think you can dismiss interference with the catcher. The Catcher clearly pulled his arm back just before the ball hit the batter. It seems like he knew someone was behind him and was trying to avoid a collision and or clear the way in case it was one of his teammate trying to make the catch.
Exactly- the catcher turns his head and immediately pulls his arm back because he sees the batter right there and the collision impending- either that or he just gives up but given that he throws his hands up immediately after it hits the batter it looks like he felt he was denied a play on the ball- and to be fair the ball would have easily been within diving distance right next to him had the batter not been in the way. Its odd to me that Lindsay dismisses interference with this one given that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense in this case. I feel like the optics also are tough with this one for the umps- the offensive team is laughing about it because they know they messed up while the defense would have been livid having been blocked a play on the ball and then caught it anyways (even though the catch doesnt matter from a rules perspective).
Of course we can’t see the angle and view the umpires had and that’s the view they have to make their judgment call with. Maybe the ball was barely over fair ground when it hit BR or maybe from PU view he did judge INT on BR.
What do you mean inconclusive? There's obvious evidence if you apply some basic logic. That ball is going near vertical. The batter is standing up near vertical. It's a safe assumption to say it's almost guaranteed that if the batter was not there, the ball would land where the batter was standing when he got hit. Where was the batter standing? Looks pretty clear he found himself back into the batter's box as he got struck by the ball. Angles are not required in this logic. There is no bad angle to look at this play with as long as you're looking at the play itself. Ball dropping straight down hits a person in the head standing in the batter's box. Logic dictates that almost 100% of the time this means the ball would land where the guy was standing. Ball would land in the batter's box. Foul ball is confirmed!! If you can't tell where the batter's feet were during that play, I'm sorry but you are all blind as fuck.
@@LemonStir no sense arguing if ball was over fair or foul ground, fact is we can’t see what umpire saw. Nor am I arguing that, I am simply talking about rules here, specifically that it only matters where the ball is in relation to the ground below it when first touched. Certianly a person with feet in or around the batters box is very close to foul line in fact part of batters box is in fair ground. I don’t care one iota about where the ball “would have landed” as that does not figure into the rule. Only the exact location of ball at point of contact… go straight down from there to ground. Is that ball over fair ground even a tiny little bit? Remember the lines themselves and all of home plate are in fair territory. Your deductions above seem to indicate that your deciding fair/foul based on where the ball would land not its location at time of contact. I certainly would not want to make that call from the angle we have in the video, as imo it was very close on fair/foul assuming the umpire had not already called INT for hindering the catchers attempt to play the batted ball.
Agree it looked like interference to me. That's a judgement call in the end. I'd call this an acceptable call that reasonable people could disagree about.
If you look at where the batter's feet are when the ball hits him, he is in the batter's box. This puts him in foul territory,. Also, the catcher never changed his direction to field the ball because of the batter and there was never any contact between the catcher and batter, so no interference. Bad call by the umpires.
International or not!! The batter made contact with the ball BEFORE it hit the ground! There is no umpire opinion of could the catch have been made! It's just flat out interference! Just as if the ball hit a batter on deck , or a base coach. He is wrong in the interpretation of the rule!
@@visarr ANY time a batted ball hits the batter, it becomes a dead ball regardless of whether it's fair or foul. Also, not all foul balls become dead balls. A foul fly ball that is legally caught by a fielder is still in play (live) and runners may tag up and advance on such a play. In your example, the batter is (apparently) immediately struck by the batted ball, which means that highly unlikely that anyone would've had a chance to catch the batted ball in flight, especially if it's going downward towards the batter's foot. However, in the video, the ball was popped up, which affords the opportunity for a fielder to make a play on it by catching it in flight. Here, the batter fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball (a popup), which means that the batter should be out [Rule 6.01(a)(10)]. The fact that he stays in the batter's box should make no difference. In fact, the batter really should be running towards first base since the ball could wind up being fair even if it initially lands foul untouched.
I have this as a foul ball - the batter was still in foul territory (barely) when it contacted him. I dont have interference as the catcher misplayed the ball, as you said, and wasn't close enough to the batter. But the batter should have been running on the play, so if I'm the coach, I'm ok with him getting called out!
Whas the ball touched by an offensive player BEFORE it hit the ground?? _______ If so, you have interference! Plain and simple! For every infraction of a rule,, there is ONE punishment of said rule!! Baseball is getting out of hand with these umpires judgment calls!
@stevehamman4465 your rules/statement doesn't apply for the Batter Runner, only other runners, and only if in fair ground. Your attempt at an easy explanation leaves a lot of meat on the bone.
I think that this is - assuming the crew was fully across the rules - a situation where the call was almost made on suspicion. And what I mean by that is that none of the 2/3 person crew is on the 3rd base line (extended or otherwise) to be in a good position to see the fair/foul element. If the ball hits the ground, they’ve got a chance to see where the puff of dust comes from, but also an opportunity to see where the ball goes afterwards. PU is likely tracking the catcher - that’s what I’ve been taught - and is maybe just starting to widen their view to pickup the ball itself as the catcher starts showing they’ve lost/they’re losing the ball. It would be easy for the crew to mistakenly think the ball hit the batter in fair territory, influenced by the batter moving that way as they were hit. It also seems not beyond the realms of possibility to read the catcher’s movements just before the ball hit the batter as pulling out of a potential collision with them, rather than what seems more likely with the benefit of replay review as just pulling out of a leap or dive for the ball that will be out of their reach.
@@kennowens7381 , so a pop up down the first baseline, in foul territory, it can hit the runner in foul territory and it's just ruled a foul ball?? I dont think so!! This is a batted ball. Let me repeat myself. THIS IS A BATTED BALL!
Agree, if he had run to first, that ball would have ended up in fair territory and he would have a hit. Never understand why batters don’t run out every hit ball.
with the catchers reaction... that ball was headed to fair territory.. he could have ruled this BR made contact with a ball that was moving fair... not sure if NCAA has that in their book. I know we've been taught that with NFHS.. and with that ball hit that high... the box is no longer a safe zone as he has plenty of time to avoid... we need to remember.. if a runner/batter runner is hit by a batted ball before it passes an IF (other than pitcher) it's INT.. if he felt it was going fair (and the spin could very well have been pushing it there)... INT and since he had ample time to move.. the box is not longer the protection in this case.
Not entirely correct. A batter who is contacted by a foul fly ball is not out. The ball is dead and it is a foul ball (Fed 2-16d). NFHS requires intentional action by the batter to rule an out if he deflects a ball which has a chance of becoming fair (Fed 7-3-1i).
@@teebob21 See I was taught intent was not part of that.. if it was going fair, the obligation is to treat is as if fair...Been a while since I did baseball.. They abused me enough that I walked. hell, for all I know, they may have changed it too..
@@iuaump4 All the umpire needs is the feeling that it MIGHT.. I don't know.. but the umpire on the scene may very well. I caught while I played.. a ball going up toward the screen then the spin bringing it back fair (like you see the catchers movment indicate) is very VERY common... Knowing that.. if he wasn't there.. I'm betting that once bounce and that ball is in fair territory..
I think it’s at least plausible that at the last split second when the batter turned his head toward fair territory as he was trying to get out of the catcher’s way, his head could have entered fair territory.
What's the ruling on how to assess whether or not this is a fair ball? It's not an unreasonable interpretation to say that the batter was in foul territory when it hit him, but the ball's trajectory was going to make it a fair ball if he didn't get hit with it.
@@Simba65315 Understood, but the rule book IS full of instances where the umpires are asked to make assumptions to provide remedies for various occurrences and infractions.
@@Simba65315 but you can assume a runner wouldve made his base on obstruction type 2 to nullify the act? there's plenty of room for interpretation here and this would've been a fair ball, hence interference by 6.01(a)(11)
Glad to have you back from youtube jail. These are great learning tools for fans, players, coaches and we umpires. Thanks again for these rare occurrence plays, the community loves it input.
This is physics. The ball goes up with a backspin. As it ascends, the Magnus effect, a consequence of the air, pushes the ball away from the field. However, as the ball descends, the Magnus effect of the backspin pushes the ball toward the field. It was not a shock that the ball hit the batter in the head. Thank you for posting this video. It has pedagogical value for folks who teach first-year physics or fluid dynamics.
I'm glad you mentioned the Magnus Effect. Since the ball is spinning back toward fair territory as it comes down, it has the potential to be a fair ball. Since the batter-runner is touched by a batted ball that has the potential to be fair, I have an out for interference on this play.
Easy to say in hindsight I guess, but the batsman should have run to first. That way, if it's a foul ball he just has to go back to the box, but if it's fair and not caught (as it seems it would not have been) he doesn't get hit by it, and he's got a base hit.
I see it as a fair ball. I'm pretty sure that the position of the batter when it hits him is irrelevant, but rather whether the ball was still in fair territory. From my point of view, it certainly could have been. But simply because it was an awesome play, I'm happy they called him out. 🙂
The ball hits the batters head while he's standing in foul territory (rewind, it's clearly visible). If it hadn't hit the batters head it would have landed foul.
@@randallmarsh1187 But even if the ball lands in foul territory, it could still become a fair ball. The runner should not have been standing there. If a batted ball hits you as a offensive batter/runner, you are in the wrong place. You could say the catcher didn't dive because he saw the batter was standing in the path of the ball. I see both arguments and would not be upset with a foul ball call, but personally think its batters interference. As an offensive player, leave no doubt and get out of there. By staying in the batters box you may end up getting thrown out at first if the ball is not caught and bounces fair.
@@randallmarsh1187can’t guess where the ball would have landed only rule on location of ball (fair or foul) relative to foul line when it his batters helmet. Not the location of batter, the location of the ball. Don’t care if his feet are in box or touching fair or fouled ground it does not matter. Only where the ball is.
Here is a training video on fair vs foul… especially relevant is 1:30 to 2:00 where he gives examples while he is straddling the foul line… and they will tell you it does not matter where the players feet are, simply the location of the ball in relation to the foul line.
I would be so like “ wtf just happened “😂😂😂😂 stick with the out call, looks like it was gonna be fair from where it hit batter. Thanks for the video!!!
1 option not explored here is that the batter did take a couple steps backwards, and out of the box I believe. Still not interference by rule, but also not a dead ball once outside the box. Therefore, it would be an out on the catch.
Yes, can be INT by rule if umpire judges that BR failed to get out of F2s way. If that was ruling then ball is already dead when it touched the BR helmet.
Doesn't matter if he had stayed in the box. He interfered and therefore is out. That's why you should always run, especially if you don't know what the ball is. He knew it was somewhere in the air, don't assume it will be foul. His teammates and coaches should have shouted to run.
BR has to vacate the box if defender needs to make initial play on batted ball. The fact that he may have stepped in or out is irrelevant… did he get in F2s way and hinder the attempt to field the ball? Maybe. That’s why umpires get the big bucks! Judgement.
@@edethridge1607maybe. Did F2 misplay because BR failed to move? Hard to say but benifit of doubt should go to F2 as he has right of way while BR has obligation to get out of way. Either could be correct..judgement.
I think the catcher flinches and somewhat slows down because he sees the batter in the way. If that is what the umpires saw I could definitely defend an interference call. And we already know interference is the only way to get an out here.
Given all those options, yeah I’d go with batter / runner interference.. why wasn’t the runner hustling to first base? He was in the catcher’s way preventing them from catching it.
@@iuaump4 The argument could be made (I don't think its the case) that the catcher slowed up because he saw the batter in his way out of the corner of his eye. The fact of the matter is the catcher could not have made a play on the ball if he wanted to because of the batter.
@@iuaump4maybe? Or did he pull back because he saw BR in his way? Not necessarily disagreeing but I’d like to have PU view to make my call. Benefit of doubt has to go to F2 he has right of way..
Watching the play the 1st time (which is all we get in real life) I had a foul ball. Could I buy interference? Yes, but the catcher was going everywhere but towards the ball so that's going to be a hard sell to the offense. The rules support either decision, let's just be happy we have another situation that allows us to get into the rulebook.
Since the ball had not passed an infielder other than the catcher, a batted ball hitting any offensive player is interference and the offending player is automatically out and the ball is dead, so the catcher caught a dead ball and the batter is out and all advancing runners return to the base they had at the time of the pitch. Interference need not be intentional, as intention is not a part of the offense. Many a runner running from 1st to 2nd and hit by a batted ball has been called out for interference with no intention of getting hit by the ball. The batter has a duty to evacuate the area yo allow the fielders to field the ball, not stand there like a statue. The batter's box is not a sanctuary.
Plate umpire needs to assume the ball will be close to the foul lines and set up accordingly. That is, near the foul lines. The PU does not know where the ball is and that is the usual situation. Priority is Fair/Foul - Catch/No Catch. If the ball starts to fall away from the foul line, then the umpire can go with the ball and fielder and make a call on the catch/no-catch, if it's not close to the line.
The catcher didn't even know where the ball was, how would the umpire know where to set up so that he would not hinder the catcher who was trying to make a play?
@@buckleygenoiii531 The typical situation is that the ball is popped up somewhere between the foul line and the backstop, but you don't know if it's close to the foul line or not. Not yet... As the plate umpire, you set yourself up near point of plate or the first base line or third base line extended - if you know which side of the plate the ball was hit. You stay there until you pick up where the ball is going which means watching the catcher. Often times the catcher/fielder will go back and forth depending on how high the ball was popped up. If it's clear the ball is going near the backstop or dugout then you move with the catcher away from the foul line. You need to set up to make a Fair/Foul call. If the ball is touched near the foul line, then you first and always signal fair/foul and then catch/no catch or foul as the situation dictates.
@@robertbrown7470 While fair/foul is treated as the priority with regards to positioning for calls against other calling responsibilities, the application is different here. Firstly, given how close to the plate this winds up being at contact, it would be difficult to determine which of the foul lines to be on. The only way to be on both would be to be on or immediately adjacent to the plate which means you’d run the risk of being in the way of either the catcher or the batter, or both, and of being too close to the ball’s landing/contact point to see it clearly. Everything I’ve been taught, and from watching MLB umpires it would seem to be consistent with their processes, is to track and follow the catcher; the catcher’s already (supposed to be) tracking the ball, and by following the catcher at an appropriate distance you can make sure to be in a position to see something to make your call while also not being trampled by the catcher or decked when they fling their mask away. The mechanic you’re referring to is more suited to a fly ball away from home plate, though still based on where the relevant fielder is, rather than purely tracking the ball and nothing else. Whether as plate or 1st/3rd base umpire, you want to be straddling the line if it’s likely coming down near the line, shifting with the fielder as they drift more clearly into foul territory, and getting as close as practicable to the fence (or straddling the line again if there’s no fence) as the fielder nears the boundary for the ball potentially being out of play, whether before or after being caught.
@@robertbrown7470 While fair/foul is treated as the priority with regards to positioning for calls against other calling responsibilities, the application is different here. Firstly, given how close to the plate this winds up being at contact, it would be difficult to determine which of the foul lines to be on. The only way to be on both would be to be on or immediately adjacent to the plate which means you’d run the risk of being in the way of either the catcher or the batter, or both, and of being too close to the ball’s landing/contact point to see it clearly. Everything I’ve been taught, and from watching MLB umpires it would seem to be consistent with their processes, is to track and follow the catcher; the catcher’s already (supposed to be) tracking the ball, and by following the catcher at an appropriate distance you can make sure to be in a position to see something to make your call while also not being trampled by the catcher or decked when they fling their mask away. The mechanic you’re referring to is more suited to a fly ball away from home plate, though still based on where the relevant fielder is, rather than purely tracking the ball and nothing else. Whether as plate or 1st/3rd base umpire, you want to be straddling the line if it’s likely coming down near the line, shifting with the fielder as they drift more clearly into foul territory, and getting as close as practicable to the fence (or straddling the line again if there’s no fence) as the fielder nears the boundary for the ball potentially being out of play, whether before or after being caught.
A non factor if the batter runs toward first once making contact with the ball. The way the ball is travelling it appears that it is going to bounce right into the middle of fair territory, even if landing foul first. To close to call for the battery to just be standing around.
It appears the batter at the end took a few steps backward towards fair territory. He also was in front of the plate. Cant be 100% sure it hit his head in foul or fair, but the slight hesitation by the catcher seeing the batter in his way is enough to create the doubt and call interference on the batter who shouldve been running to 1st base.
Batter is out. This falls under the interference rule. Note that interference does not have to be intentional. Sure, the catcher misjudged the fly ball and I suppose tricked the batter thinking it would be foul but he was in the way, even if unintentionally. At this point, seeing the catcher (and thus the ball) come back, he should have run to first. The fact an infielder caught the ball on the fly off the batter's head has no relevance. He should have thrown to first or tagged the batter, just to make sure. It just seemed like everyone was in shock so the play wasn't completed but it didn't matter since the batter interfered and was out. But to be on safe side, you should always on unusual plays ensure the batter is out because the umps may not agree.
I think an out needs to be called here. Like you said, if it was a foul ball, it was caught as if it was a foul ball so that means an out. This is a tricky play with multiple, possible outcomes! My point, I think this has to be an out as called!!
Yes… if the umpire judged that BR failed to get out of F2 way or if the ball was judged to be over fair territory when it touched BR helmet. Otherwise not so much.
My guess it that viewed in real-time without the benefit of any sort of replay, it's wouldn't be out of the question for the umpires to make a determination that the batter/runner interfered with the catcher's attempt at fielding the ball. Especially if they're trying to piece together what happened from memory after the fact.
It actually looks like the batter was making an attempt to get out of the catcher’s way as he realized the catcher was making a play. Over playing the ball in that situation is kinda normal. Catcher has to get up from his crouch and then locate the ball. The batter assumed it was way out of play.
I have this as a "Game Management" out. It's a batted ball, so he should at least be moving toward 1st base. Basically, the deflection interfered with the balls ability to come to a rest in fair or foul territory. There isn't a good explanation for why he isn't out, so the call is what is the least likely to produce an ejection.
Interference for sure. Batter knew he popped the ball up in the home plate vicinity, seen the catcher was trying to make a play, and the batter just camped out in the area not giving the catcher proper space.
Without knowing status of the ball (fair/foul) when it hit the runner, this is all supposition. If foul when it hit the batter, then I have a foul ball. If in fair territory, then an out. If the batter was actually doing his job, you know... running to 1st, this most likely is a base hit with the ball bouncing into fair territory before being touched by a fielder.
that's a fair ball, based on its trajectory (it was either going to land in fair territory, or hit the batter while standing in fair/foul territory looks like it would have hit the home plate and rolled or bounced into fair territory.
However, if the batter hit the ball straight into the plate, and it bounces back into him while he's still standing in the box, it's a foul ball. The key is where the batter is standing, and I'm not sure exactly where he is. In the box, foul. Out of the box, out.
Trajectory doesn't matter. The position of the ball at the moment it contacts the batter is all that matters. For this to be an interference out, the ball must be ruled fair at the moment it contacted the batter, regardless of what _it possibly could have done had it not contacted the batter._ The ball is dead: is it fair or foul? We don't have a great angle in the video, but it certainly appears to be foul. Again, if it's fair, it's an out. A batter who is contacted by a foul fly ball is not out. The ball is dead and the batter charged with a foul ball.
Lindsey.... The catcher is close enough to judge a play, or more importantly, an attempt was within reason, yes F2 would've probably had to lay out for a catch, attempted catch, but a play was possible. The batter is right there, and F2 would've had a shot We've seen more acrobatic defensive plays than this The higher degree of probability leans the needle towards INT Lets not get too deep in the woods.
Correct. But I think you're making it seem like the batter got in the catcher's way, which he didn't. I have him out for being hit slightly out of the box by a ball that has the potential of going Fair, which is in the NCAA rulebook.
The catcher definitely looked up and saw the batter there and briefly stopped going for the ball. Doubtful he would have caught it anyway, but he definitely alters his attempt due to the batter being there.
I don't have a huge problem with either a foul ball or out being called. I think it is close. When I saw this the other day and was talking with a friend, I had it as "most likely" foul. but the batter, at the very least, comes "close" to leaving the batter's box before coming back into it and getting hit. Benefit of replay, I'm probably calling foul ball. In the moment without replay and I can easily see how an out was ruled. If the BR runs it out as he should, he probably ends up on base safely.
Batted ball hits batter/runner in foul territory… By rule I have a foul ball… but also understand that this play is such an insane oddity that the umpires were likely just as shocked as we are at this turn of events and saw a spectacular catch.
Yes… if the ball was completely over foul ground at time of contact with BR helmet….and if umpire did not already rule INT for not getting out of F2 way… then result is foul ball.
I have interference batters out because the batter never attempted to get out of the way. If you watch carefully because the batter is moving more in the way the catcher senses that and ducks out at the last second.
Some subjective elements here but in terms of karma, I’m calling it an out. 1. Too cool not to 2. Batter should have been running it out as they really didn’t know where it was 3. Both the 3B and P were hustling to try to help out the Catcher. Reward goes to those who hustle and all things cool. Like the avatar… Happy Pride.
Did the ball. contact the batter BEFORE it hit the ground?? Regardless of your opinion of the defensive players position or ability to catch the ball, it is still , interference!! For every rule broken,, theres one punishment to be enforced. Baseball is getting away from this with all these umpires judgment calls. This batter is out for interference regardless of any stupid interpretation of a rule!
@@stevehamman4465 it's not a stupid interpretation of a rule. How did the batter impede the catcher's ability to catch the ball. If the batter was suddenly teleported a hundred miles away the catcher still misses it
@@tedgey4286 we don't know that the catcher still misses it since the batter helmet took that opportunity away. There was NO reason for the batter to be where he was. The defense always has the protection to field a batted ball, and the batter being in the way took that opportunity away.
I think it's an out because if he had headed toward first, they wouldn't have caught it at all. It would've landed foul BUT batter gave up on the play and walked away from first base. The walking away is what turns it for me. Two steps toward first and it doesn't hit him and they don't catch it.
Can’t rule on what if’s… just rule on what actually happened. It’s either INT on batter failure to get out of F2 way, or INT for making contact with live batted fair ball (if ball was fair when touched helmet) or a foul ball (if ball was foul when it touched helmet). What might have happened if BR ran is immaterial here.
U say u can't see how the batter interfered with the catcher. First off the catcher had to find the ball, secondly every little leaguer is taught to run to first base on contact. Him standing there knowing the ball was popped up I believe this was intentional n the umpire(I umpires for several years) made the right call according to the rules.
there is no way that can be a foul ball, its clearly going fair if the batter runner doesn't touch it and he definitely doesn't have legal position in the box, he should've been down the line heading to first. I have this as an out for interference per rule 6.01(a)(11) It is interference by a batter or a runner when a fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching or passing a fielder.
@@teebob21 I’m just using as much as the information as I can get to assess the situation. All anyone does in any situation to be fair but do see where you are coming from.
I think it should be a foul ball. The batter did not know where the ball was, and I do not believe it was interference in the least bit. He wasn't trying to get in the catchers way. He was standing still until he saw the catcher running right towards him. Plus, it hit him in foul territory, so its not a live ball. It's no different if it hits off a net or a dugout and pops up and a fielder catches it.
You are correct if the BALL was completely over foul territory when it hit the BR. Don’t matter where batters feet are it matters where ball is relative to line. We can’t really tell from single camera angle and it’s not view PU has.
The ball hit the batter while he was standing on the foul line. Had the ball dropped, it could have bounced into fair territory - or foul territory. If I were the ump behind the plate, I'd be calling my partner/partners over and asking, "WTH do we do?"
I get what everyone is saying. Yes the batter's feet are in the box...i.e. foul ball as a concept. But the vagueness of the rules you can look at as if it was a fair ball. That ball could have "landed" right in front of home plate...thus an interference. I love rules that after so many years of a sport are so vague. 😂😂
Don’t matter where his feet are WHERE IS THE BALL? it looks very close to being over foul line. The box is not a safe haven if pop u coming down there. BR has to let F2 play the ball.
We MIGHT see this once again in our lifetime. At 11-0 I don't care what the call is honestly. It shouldn't be interference. It should be a catch honestly just on principle.
There no principle under which this can be a caught live fly ball. It can only be one of three things: 1. Umpire rules BR failed to allow F2 to play the ball.. INT dead ball even before it hits batters helmet. If umpire rules no INT just misplay by F2 then batted ball remains alive until it touches batters helmet then it for sure is dead and either.. 2. Touches helmet while any part of BALL (not the batter) is over foul line or fair ground then INT and BR is out -or- 3. Touches helmet while ball is completely over foul ground then foul ball Batter continues his at bat. There is no way this is just called a live ball caught pop fly out.. ball was already dead when caught.
It's no different than a tipped ball. If the ball doesn't touch an inanimate object, it's in fair play. The runner is in the field of play, as is the ball. Even though the runner just stood there, it still caused interference with the catcher. The tip off the runners helment kept the ball in play to be caught by another player. Runner out, batter out. That's heads up baseball. I
I thought he stepped fair trying to stay out of the catcher's way when he got hit. But it is so close that i am not defending that, it js just what i saw.
The mere fact that the catcher initially misplayed the popup does not relieve the batter from any potential interference call. If the batter doesn't need to be standing in the batter's box, he needs to get out of the way (on a popup he has plenty of time to do this) and let the defense do their thing. Otherwise, He should be called out for failing to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball (in this case, a popup) [Rule 6.01(a)(10)]. In fact, the batter should be running towards first base anyway since that ball could wind up being fair even if it initially lands foul untouched.
This is close, but he did not fail to avoid a fielder, he failed to avoid the ball. I have him out of the box being hit by a ball that has the potential of going Fair, therefore an out.
Change the scenario slightly. Batter swings, the ball lands foul, but spins back towards fair. The batter in the box has the ball hit him with one foot still in the box. The batter does not intend to have the ball hit him, but the minute it does, the ball is dead. Key word here for both is intent, the batter, much like the catcher and the umpire have no idea of where the ball is. The batter did not intend to interfere, made the attempt to get out of the way and did not cause the catcher to miss the play. Foul ball, play on.
So in this new scenario, it’s not fair or foul until touched. If ball touches BR over fair bound BR is out. If BALL is complete in foul ground it’s a foul ball. Yes either way if first contact of batted ball is by BR (just like the video) then immediate dead ball.
Batter is out! Regardless of the catch, and regardless of any catcher interference possibility. Clearly the batter was in fair territory when it bounced off his head. Fair ball, = he's out!
I think it should be a foul ball, same as if he simply fouled it off his foot while still in the batter's box. I also think interference is an incorrect but justifiable, forgivable call. Obviously, if the call was an out due to a catch, that ump should never be allowed to work again.
What's the summary: No interference by the batter but batter is hit by the batted ball in foul terrirtory - Foul Ball. If the umpire judged the batter interfered with a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball - He's out for interference. If the ball hit the batter in fair territory he's out for interference with a batted ball, anyway. But I think the ball was in foul territory when it hit him. The batter wasn't just standing in the batter's box, he was all over and around the batter's box. I wouldn't protect him with being in the batter's box. I think he went in and out of it. I would say, "Foul!"
If a ball in left field can be considered an infield fly rule and be dropped (thanks Sam Holbrook), I don't see how this can not be deemed interference on the batter with the catcher and making a reasonable attempt to catch the ball.
2-16, as provided in the video, says that a fielder has to touch the ball before it hits the offensive player (and says nothing about fair or foul). I don't have a copy of the rules to go look myself, but to me this looks like none of the snippets provided apply so I guess it would still be a catch.
Nope… live batted ball that first touches an BR is a Dead Ball. Defense caught a dead ball so not a legal “catch”. The out has to be INT either by making contact with fair batted ball or because PU judged that BR did not get out of F2s way. Either way ball is already dead by the time the other defender catches the rebound of the Bars noggin.
Of course, as always, if it’s a “strange” play and umpires have to rule, everyone becomes certain the umpires don’t know what they are doing. Amazing most levels of sports get any officials at all.
@@MwD676 yes there is no way for this to be a catch. The ball was dead either before it hit batters helmet because umpire ruled INT because batter hindered catcher or if umpire didn’t believe that F2 was hindered then the ball was dead when it hit the batter. Either way the ball was dead when it was caught.
Looks to me like the batter was in fair territory and the ball first touches him over fair territory, so how are people seeing a foul ball here? He also wasn't moving toward 1B, just looking up and then ducking, so I don't see why he should get any benefit from touching the ball accidentally.
That is 100% incorrect. It is not common and accepted practice that the whole box is foul. No ruleset, with the possible exception of local leagues with local rules made by local fools, defines the batter's boxes entirely foul.
So, I haven't watched the full vid yet, because I wanted to throw out my guess first: The ball appears fair, so isn't the batter out for being out of the box, hit by a fair ball?
I agree. Had the batter been running, if there were no other runners on base, once the ball hit the ground the catcher would've been best off not playing it and hoping it rolls or bounces foul, because that batter's on first base safely if it doesn't.
Probably? But we don’t call what we think might have happened just rule on location of ball at time of contact with BR. Assuming we already passed on calling INT for not getting out of F2 way…
@@erniepeters1695 no probably from my point of view. Certainly would have been a fair ball. Regardless, the ball was not foul yet. It isn’t considered a fall ball until past 1st or 3rd or defense touches the ball in foul ground before 1st or 3rd. So that is a live ball, that the batter touched. Batter is out. No doubt about it.
@@danielcastiglione5328 exactly.. not fair or foul until moment it touches the batters helmet. Then (assuming not already called INT for failure to get out of the way) it becomes fair or foul at time of contact with helmet. Really nothing to do with what might have happened if the BR was not there.
Surely, it's a foul ball. There was no interference at all, because the batter was avoiding the catcher and moved to do what he is supposed to do to avoid interference. A batter inside the batter’s box (yes, he entered it again) touched by a hitted ball is a foul ball.
I have a question about an ejection that happened 7/08/2011 between the orioles and the Red Sox. The benches cleared after Orioles pitcher Kevin Gregg pointed to Ortiz when he hit a fly out. Gregg tried to hit Ortiz on the previous 2 pitches but missed and a warning was called for both teams. What made the ump throw out Gregg if he only pointed at Ortiz? Is pointing at an opponent worthy of an ejection (unsportsmanlike?) or was it the totality of the situation? ruclips.net/video/a-26z3K0Hi8/видео.htmlsi=NnaQltQ4NvOF1ySn
I disagree with your interpretation of 2-16. You say "it is not a catch if the ball first hits an offensive player" but the rule says "it is not a catch *if a fielder touches a fly ball that THEN* hits a member of the offensive team". Which did not happen in this case. So unless there is another rule that says what you claimed, is the ball still live until it is caught by the fielder for a regular catch?
I'm good with your opinion of foul ball, but I have another question. If there were two strikes on the batter, would this be the same as a caught foul tip for strike three?
Not sure if you'll get a better answer, but the ball is dead as soon as it hits the batter (like when it's fouled off of a batter's foot). The call would be a foul-strike, and would receive another pitch.
It's pretty clear to me that if the batter had not been standing in that exact spot, the catcher had no chance of actually making the play since he ran the wrong direction at first. I don't know how that applies, so I'd be interested to hear if the ball has to be catchable in order for interference to apply.
I have to disagree on the foul ball call here. It's hard to tell conclusively (hence I would say call stands from a review standpoint) however the batter steps backwards before it hits him and looks like he may have been out of the batters box making it a fair ball and an out.
Pausing after seeing play. Was he still in the batter's box? Hit by batted ball. Why didn't he head to first? Would have made it EASILY before THAT landed. Might have gone foul while infield or been caught - could also have been dropped. Not very heads up by batter here despite LITERALLY being heads up here, lol.😂😂😂😂😂
The batter is out when he's hit by a batted ball that has the POTENTIAL to go fair. You usually see this on a dribbler down the first baseline and the batter running on that baseline. Here, looking at the video, the batter was in front of the plate and technically out of the box, which should still qualify.
Rule of Cool applies here.
That catch is too good to have it not count.
I can't be the only one disappointed that neither the commentator nor Lindsay cited Rule of Cool.
No
@@meiko_kajicry harder….get it all out.
@@pyRoy6I too was let down by the short sighted fail to respect “Rule of Cool”.
Unfortunate for something like that to happen in such a close game....
Got to get these 'game on the line' calls right! 😂
The catcher pulls up at the last moment. Is that because he senses the batter and alters his movement to avoid a collision, or because he so misplayed the ball that he gave up at that point? I can't be sure, but since it could be because of the former I'm inclined to rule that the batter interfered with the catcher.
Inconclusive from the video angle if it was fair or foul, but I don't think you can dismiss interference with the catcher. The Catcher clearly pulled his arm back just before the ball hit the batter. It seems like he knew someone was behind him and was trying to avoid a collision and or clear the way in case it was one of his teammate trying to make the catch.
Exactly- the catcher turns his head and immediately pulls his arm back because he sees the batter right there and the collision impending- either that or he just gives up but given that he throws his hands up immediately after it hits the batter it looks like he felt he was denied a play on the ball- and to be fair the ball would have easily been within diving distance right next to him had the batter not been in the way.
Its odd to me that Lindsay dismisses interference with this one given that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense in this case.
I feel like the optics also are tough with this one for the umps- the offensive team is laughing about it because they know they messed up while the defense would have been livid having been blocked a play on the ball and then caught it anyways (even though the catch doesnt matter from a rules perspective).
Of course we can’t see the angle and view the umpires had and that’s the view they have to make their judgment call with. Maybe the ball was barely over fair ground when it hit BR or maybe from PU view he did judge INT on BR.
What do you mean inconclusive? There's obvious evidence if you apply some basic logic. That ball is going near vertical. The batter is standing up near vertical. It's a safe assumption to say it's almost guaranteed that if the batter was not there, the ball would land where the batter was standing when he got hit. Where was the batter standing? Looks pretty clear he found himself back into the batter's box as he got struck by the ball.
Angles are not required in this logic. There is no bad angle to look at this play with as long as you're looking at the play itself. Ball dropping straight down hits a person in the head standing in the batter's box. Logic dictates that almost 100% of the time this means the ball would land where the guy was standing. Ball would land in the batter's box. Foul ball is confirmed!! If you can't tell where the batter's feet were during that play, I'm sorry but you are all blind as fuck.
@@LemonStir no sense arguing if ball was over fair or foul ground, fact is we can’t see what umpire saw. Nor am I arguing that, I am simply talking about rules here, specifically that it only matters where the ball is in relation to the ground below it when first touched. Certianly a person with feet in or around the batters box is very close to foul line in fact part of batters box is in fair ground. I don’t care one iota about where the ball “would have landed” as that does not figure into the rule. Only the exact location of ball at point of contact… go straight down from there to ground. Is that ball over fair ground even a tiny little bit? Remember the lines themselves and all of home plate are in fair territory. Your deductions above seem to indicate that your deciding fair/foul based on where the ball would land not its location at time of contact. I certainly would not want to make that call from the angle we have in the video, as imo it was very close on fair/foul assuming the umpire had not already called INT for hindering the catchers attempt to play the batted ball.
Agree it looked like interference to me. That's a judgement call in the end. I'd call this an acceptable call that reasonable people could disagree about.
I had: "I don't know what the rule is but it sure seems like it could be an out."
Happy Bobby Bonilla Day.
Impossible to tell with the camera angles... I'll accept the on the field Umpire's ruling.
If you look at where the batter's feet are when the ball hits him, he is in the batter's box. This puts him in foul territory,. Also, the catcher never changed his direction to field the ball because of the batter and there was never any contact between the catcher and batter, so no interference. Bad call by the umpires.
I agree. Foul ball.
International or not!! The batter made contact with the ball BEFORE it hit the ground! There is no umpire opinion of could the catch have been made! It's just flat out interference! Just as if the ball hit a batter on deck , or a base coach. He is wrong in the interpretation of the rule!
@@stevehamman4465 When the ball is fouled by the batter and it hits him (in the foot, for example), it is immediately ruled dead and is a foul ball.
@@visarr ANY time a batted ball hits the batter, it becomes a dead ball regardless of whether it's fair or foul.
Also, not all foul balls become dead balls. A foul fly ball that is legally caught by a fielder is still in play (live) and runners may tag up and advance on such a play.
In your example, the batter is (apparently) immediately struck by the batted ball, which means that highly unlikely that anyone would've had a chance to catch the batted ball in flight, especially if it's going downward towards the batter's foot.
However, in the video, the ball was popped up, which affords the opportunity for a fielder to make a play on it by catching it in flight. Here, the batter fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball (a popup), which means that the batter should be out [Rule 6.01(a)(10)]. The fact that he stays in the batter's box should make no difference. In fact, the batter really should be running towards first base since the ball could wind up being fair even if it initially lands foul untouched.
You can be in fair territory in the batter's box.
I have this as a foul ball - the batter was still in foul territory (barely) when it contacted him. I dont have interference as the catcher misplayed the ball, as you said, and wasn't close enough to the batter. But the batter should have been running on the play, so if I'm the coach, I'm ok with him getting called out!
Whas the ball touched by an offensive player BEFORE it hit the ground?? _______ If so, you have interference! Plain and simple! For every infraction of a rule,, there is ONE punishment of said rule!! Baseball is getting out of hand with these umpires judgment calls!
@stevehamman4465 Not if the ball was foul when it touched him... it has to be a fair batted ball touching the batter for it to be an out.
@stevehamman4465 your rules/statement doesn't apply for the Batter Runner, only other runners, and only if in fair ground.
Your attempt at an easy explanation leaves a lot of meat on the bone.
I think that this is - assuming the crew was fully across the rules - a situation where the call was almost made on suspicion. And what I mean by that is that none of the 2/3 person crew is on the 3rd base line (extended or otherwise) to be in a good position to see the fair/foul element. If the ball hits the ground, they’ve got a chance to see where the puff of dust comes from, but also an opportunity to see where the ball goes afterwards. PU is likely tracking the catcher - that’s what I’ve been taught - and is maybe just starting to widen their view to pickup the ball itself as the catcher starts showing they’ve lost/they’re losing the ball. It would be easy for the crew to mistakenly think the ball hit the batter in fair territory, influenced by the batter moving that way as they were hit. It also seems not beyond the realms of possibility to read the catcher’s movements just before the ball hit the batter as pulling out of a potential collision with them, rather than what seems more likely with the benefit of replay review as just pulling out of a leap or dive for the ball that will be out of their reach.
@@kennowens7381 , so a pop up down the first baseline, in foul territory, it can hit the runner in foul territory and it's just ruled a foul ball?? I dont think so!! This is a batted ball. Let me repeat myself. THIS IS A BATTED BALL!
Had a foul ball from first view :)
This almost wound up being a fair ball. Batters should be running out the play unless they hear the ball is foul.
Agree, if he had run to first, that ball would have ended up in fair territory and he would have a hit. Never understand why batters don’t run out every hit ball.
with the catchers reaction... that ball was headed to fair territory.. he could have ruled this BR made contact with a ball that was moving fair... not sure if NCAA has that in their book. I know we've been taught that with NFHS.. and with that ball hit that high... the box is no longer a safe zone as he has plenty of time to avoid... we need to remember.. if a runner/batter runner is hit by a batted ball before it passes an IF (other than pitcher) it's INT.. if he felt it was going fair (and the spin could very well have been pushing it there)... INT and since he had ample time to move.. the box is not longer the protection in this case.
Not entirely correct. A batter who is contacted by a foul fly ball is not out. The ball is dead and it is a foul ball (Fed 2-16d). NFHS requires intentional action by the batter to rule an out if he deflects a ball which has a chance of becoming fair (Fed 7-3-1i).
@@teebob21 See I was taught intent was not part of that.. if it was going fair, the obligation is to treat is as if fair...Been a while since I did baseball.. They abused me enough that I walked. hell, for all I know, they may have changed it too..
@@ronpeacock9939 Fair enough. I don't work much HS baseball, either. I just happened to have a copy of the book handy. :)
@ronpeacock9939 how do you know if it's going to be fair if the batter isn't there the ball lands in the box it's a foul ball
@@iuaump4 All the umpire needs is the feeling that it MIGHT.. I don't know.. but the umpire on the scene may very well. I caught while I played.. a ball going up toward the screen then the spin bringing it back fair (like you see the catchers movment indicate) is very VERY common... Knowing that.. if he wasn't there.. I'm betting that once bounce and that ball is in fair territory..
Do we have a D&D style Rule of Cool? Cause damn this rocked
lol, thank you for not making me feel like the only one to get he D&D reference on an umpire channel! Thank you! Lol
I think it’s at least plausible that at the last split second when the batter turned his head toward fair territory as he was trying to get out of the catcher’s way, his head could have entered fair territory.
Thank you for doing a video on this play!
What's the ruling on how to assess whether or not this is a fair ball? It's not an unreasonable interpretation to say that the batter was in foul territory when it hit him, but the ball's trajectory was going to make it a fair ball if he didn't get hit with it.
Agreed and same question.
It could easily be in foul but going to land fair and what would that leave the ruling?
Its the position of the ball when first contacted. You cannot assume what the ball would have done
@@Simba65315 Understood, but the rule book IS full of instances where the umpires are asked to make assumptions to provide remedies for various occurrences and infractions.
@@Simba65315 but you can assume a runner wouldve made his base on obstruction type 2 to nullify the act? there's plenty of room for interpretation here and this would've been a fair ball, hence interference by 6.01(a)(11)
The ball id dead when it touches the batter. At that moment, if the ball is over foul territory, it is a foul ball.
Glad to have you back from youtube jail. These are great learning tools for fans, players, coaches and we umpires. Thanks again for these rare occurrence plays, the community loves it input.
This is physics. The ball goes up with a backspin. As it ascends, the Magnus effect, a consequence of the air, pushes the ball away from the field. However, as the ball descends, the Magnus effect of the backspin pushes the ball toward the field. It was not a shock that the ball hit the batter in the head.
Thank you for posting this video. It has pedagogical value for folks who teach first-year physics or fluid dynamics.
I'm glad you mentioned the Magnus Effect. Since the ball is spinning back toward fair territory as it comes down, it has the potential to be a fair ball. Since the batter-runner is touched by a batted ball that has the potential to be fair, I have an out for interference on this play.
Easy to say in hindsight I guess, but the batsman should have run to first. That way, if it's a foul ball he just has to go back to the box, but if it's fair and not caught (as it seems it would not have been) he doesn't get hit by it, and he's got a base hit.
I see it as a fair ball. I'm pretty sure that the position of the batter when it hits him is irrelevant, but rather whether the ball was still in fair territory. From my point of view, it certainly could have been. But simply because it was an awesome play, I'm happy they called him out. 🙂
The ball hits the batters head while he's standing in foul territory (rewind, it's clearly visible). If it hadn't hit the batters head it would have landed foul.
totally foul territory
@@randallmarsh1187 But even if the ball lands in foul territory, it could still become a fair ball. The runner should not have been standing there. If a batted ball hits you as a offensive batter/runner, you are in the wrong place. You could say the catcher didn't dive because he saw the batter was standing in the path of the ball.
I see both arguments and would not be upset with a foul ball call, but personally think its batters interference. As an offensive player, leave no doubt and get out of there. By staying in the batters box you may end up getting thrown out at first if the ball is not caught and bounces fair.
@@randallmarsh1187can’t guess where the ball would have landed only rule on location of ball (fair or foul) relative to foul line when it his batters helmet. Not the location of batter, the location of the ball. Don’t care if his feet are in box or touching fair or fouled ground it does not matter. Only where the ball is.
Here is a training video on fair vs foul… especially relevant is 1:30 to 2:00 where he gives examples while he is straddling the foul line… and they will tell you it does not matter where the players feet are, simply the location of the ball in relation to the foul line.
I would be so like “ wtf just happened “😂😂😂😂 stick with the out call, looks like it was gonna be fair from where it hit batter. Thanks for the video!!!
Apart from all of this, why was the batter not looking to see where the ball was going?
This is an excellent question. Run it out, kid!
@@kicking222 Exactly. I know it's NCAA summer league though, so hopefully the coach clued him in.
If you don't know where the ball is, run. In this case, he may have gotten a hit out of it. Instead, he interfered and was out.
Very strange play. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback this and say it's a foul ball, but in the moment I can see how they called the batter out.
1 option not explored here is that the batter did take a couple steps backwards, and out of the box I believe. Still not interference by rule, but also not a dead ball once outside the box. Therefore, it would be an out on the catch.
Yes, can be INT by rule if umpire judges that BR failed to get out of F2s way. If that was ruling then ball is already dead when it touched the BR helmet.
Is he still legally in the box if he steps out and then steps back in? Looks like he may have put a foot or two out of the box towards the dugout.
No out … catcher misplays ball
Ball is dead at point of contact. Bad call by ump and the commentators had no clue about what the call should be.
Doesn't matter if he had stayed in the box. He interfered and therefore is out. That's why you should always run, especially if you don't know what the ball is. He knew it was somewhere in the air, don't assume it will be foul. His teammates and coaches should have shouted to run.
BR has to vacate the box if defender needs to make initial play on batted ball. The fact that he may have stepped in or out is irrelevant… did he get in F2s way and hinder the attempt to field the ball? Maybe. That’s why umpires get the big bucks! Judgement.
@@edethridge1607maybe. Did F2 misplay because BR failed to move? Hard to say but benifit of doubt should go to F2 as he has right of way while BR has obligation to get out of way. Either could be correct..judgement.
I think the catcher flinches and somewhat slows down because he sees the batter in the way. If that is what the umpires saw I could definitely defend an interference call. And we already know interference is the only way to get an out here.
Given all those options, yeah I’d go with batter / runner interference.. why wasn’t the runner hustling to first base? He was in the catcher’s way preventing them from catching it.
I disagree with the catcher's actions he wasn't going to get the ball
because it was popped up in foul ground.
@@iuaump4 The argument could be made (I don't think its the case) that the catcher slowed up because he saw the batter in his way out of the corner of his eye. The fact of the matter is the catcher could not have made a play on the ball if he wanted to because of the batter.
@@iuaump4maybe? Or did he pull back because he saw BR in his way? Not necessarily disagreeing but I’d like to have PU view to make my call. Benefit of doubt has to go to F2 he has right of way..
Watching the play the 1st time (which is all we get in real life) I had a foul ball. Could I buy interference? Yes, but the catcher was going everywhere but towards the ball so that's going to be a hard sell to the offense. The rules support either decision, let's just be happy we have another situation that allows us to get into the rulebook.
Since the ball had not passed an infielder other than the catcher, a batted ball hitting any offensive player is interference and the offending player is automatically out and the ball is dead, so the catcher caught a dead ball and the batter is out and all advancing runners return to the base they had at the time of the pitch. Interference need not be intentional, as intention is not a part of the offense. Many a runner running from 1st to 2nd and hit by a batted ball has been called out for interference with no intention of getting hit by the ball. The batter has a duty to evacuate the area yo allow the fielders to field the ball, not stand there like a statue. The batter's box is not a sanctuary.
Plate umpire needs to assume the ball will be close to the foul lines and set up accordingly. That is, near the foul lines. The PU does not know where the ball is and that is the usual situation. Priority is Fair/Foul - Catch/No Catch.
If the ball starts to fall away from the foul line, then the umpire can go with the ball and fielder and make a call on the catch/no-catch, if it's not close to the line.
The catcher didn't even know where the ball was, how would the umpire know where to set up so that he would not hinder the catcher who was trying to make a play?
Priority is to not interfere with the play. Then catch. Then fair/foul.
@@buckleygenoiii531 The typical situation is that the ball is popped up somewhere between the foul line and the backstop, but you don't know if it's close to the foul line or not. Not yet...
As the plate umpire, you set yourself up near point of plate or the first base line or third base line extended - if you know which side of the plate the ball was hit.
You stay there until you pick up where the ball is going which means watching the catcher. Often times the catcher/fielder will go back and forth depending on how high the ball was popped up.
If it's clear the ball is going near the backstop or dugout then you move with the catcher away from the foul line.
You need to set up to make a Fair/Foul call. If the ball is touched near the foul line, then you first and always signal fair/foul and then catch/no catch or foul as the situation dictates.
@@robertbrown7470 While fair/foul is treated as the priority with regards to positioning for calls against other calling responsibilities, the application is different here. Firstly, given how close to the plate this winds up being at contact, it would be difficult to determine which of the foul lines to be on. The only way to be on both would be to be on or immediately adjacent to the plate which means you’d run the risk of being in the way of either the catcher or the batter, or both, and of being too close to the ball’s landing/contact point to see it clearly. Everything I’ve been taught, and from watching MLB umpires it would seem to be consistent with their processes, is to track and follow the catcher; the catcher’s already (supposed to be) tracking the ball, and by following the catcher at an appropriate distance you can make sure to be in a position to see something to make your call while also not being trampled by the catcher or decked when they fling their mask away.
The mechanic you’re referring to is more suited to a fly ball away from home plate, though still based on where the relevant fielder is, rather than purely tracking the ball and nothing else. Whether as plate or 1st/3rd base umpire, you want to be straddling the line if it’s likely coming down near the line, shifting with the fielder as they drift more clearly into foul territory, and getting as close as practicable to the fence (or straddling the line again if there’s no fence) as the fielder nears the boundary for the ball potentially being out of play, whether before or after being caught.
@@robertbrown7470 While fair/foul is treated as the priority with regards to positioning for calls against other calling responsibilities, the application is different here. Firstly, given how close to the plate this winds up being at contact, it would be difficult to determine which of the foul lines to be on. The only way to be on both would be to be on or immediately adjacent to the plate which means you’d run the risk of being in the way of either the catcher or the batter, or both, and of being too close to the ball’s landing/contact point to see it clearly. Everything I’ve been taught, and from watching MLB umpires it would seem to be consistent with their processes, is to track and follow the catcher; the catcher’s already (supposed to be) tracking the ball, and by following the catcher at an appropriate distance you can make sure to be in a position to see something to make your call while also not being trampled by the catcher or decked when they fling their mask away.
The mechanic you’re referring to is more suited to a fly ball away from home plate, though still based on where the relevant fielder is, rather than purely tracking the ball and nothing else. Whether as plate or 1st/3rd base umpire, you want to be straddling the line if it’s likely coming down near the line, shifting with the fielder as they drift more clearly into foul territory, and getting as close as practicable to the fence (or straddling the line again if there’s no fence) as the fielder nears the boundary for the ball potentially being out of play, whether before or after being caught.
A non factor if the batter runs toward first once making contact with the ball. The way the ball is travelling it appears that it is going to bounce right into the middle of fair territory, even if landing foul first. To close to call for the battery to just be standing around.
It appears the batter at the end took a few steps backward towards fair territory. He also was in front of the plate. Cant be 100% sure it hit his head in foul or fair, but the slight hesitation by the catcher seeing the batter in his way is enough to create the doubt and call interference on the batter who shouldve been running to 1st base.
Batter is out. This falls under the interference rule. Note that interference does not have to be intentional. Sure, the catcher misjudged the fly ball and I suppose tricked the batter thinking it would be foul but he was in the way, even if unintentionally. At this point, seeing the catcher (and thus the ball) come back, he should have run to first.
The fact an infielder caught the ball on the fly off the batter's head has no relevance. He should have thrown to first or tagged the batter, just to make sure. It just seemed like everyone was in shock so the play wasn't completed but it didn't matter since the batter interfered and was out. But to be on safe side, you should always on unusual plays ensure the batter is out because the umps may not agree.
Always run to first as soon as the ball hits the bat. If it's foul, you will find out soon enough. If not, maybe you'll make it.
Great job...we will all get this play right in the future
it's either a foul ball or out depending on whether the batter is in fair or foul territory
I think an out needs to be called here. Like you said, if it was a foul ball, it was caught as if it was a foul ball so that means an out. This is a tricky play with multiple, possible outcomes! My point, I think this has to be an out as called!!
Yes… if the umpire judged that BR failed to get out of F2 way or if the ball was judged to be over fair territory when it touched BR helmet. Otherwise not so much.
My guess it that viewed in real-time without the benefit of any sort of replay, it's wouldn't be out of the question for the umpires to make a determination that the batter/runner interfered with the catcher's attempt at fielding the ball. Especially if they're trying to piece together what happened from memory after the fact.
It actually looks like the batter was making an attempt to get out of the catcher’s way as he realized the catcher was making a play. Over playing the ball in that situation is kinda normal. Catcher has to get up from his crouch and then locate the ball. The batter assumed it was way out of play.
I have this as a "Game Management" out. It's a batted ball, so he should at least be moving toward 1st base. Basically, the deflection interfered with the balls ability to come to a rest in fair or foul territory. There isn't a good explanation for why he isn't out, so the call is what is the least likely to produce an ejection.
That's your basis for making calls, whatever is least likely to produce an ejection? Hang up your mask, Jesus.
Interference for sure. Batter knew he popped the ball up in the home plate vicinity, seen the catcher was trying to make a play, and the batter just camped out in the area not giving the catcher proper space.
Without knowing status of the ball (fair/foul) when it hit the runner, this is all supposition. If foul when it hit the batter, then I have a foul ball. If in fair territory, then an out. If the batter was actually doing his job, you know... running to 1st, this most likely is a base hit with the ball bouncing into fair territory before being touched by a fielder.
that's a fair ball, based on its trajectory (it was either going to land in fair territory, or hit the batter while standing in fair/foul territory looks like it would have hit the home plate and rolled or bounced into fair territory.
I agree, the batter moved towards the infield at the end and was in front of home plate
That's my call, too. Hitter looks like he's out of the box when it hits him. Fair ball, batter's out from being hit by the ball.
However, if the batter hit the ball straight into the plate, and it bounces back into him while he's still standing in the box, it's a foul ball. The key is where the batter is standing, and I'm not sure exactly where he is. In the box, foul. Out of the box, out.
Trajectory doesn't matter. The position of the ball at the moment it contacts the batter is all that matters. For this to be an interference out, the ball must be ruled fair at the moment it contacted the batter, regardless of what _it possibly could have done had it not contacted the batter._ The ball is dead: is it fair or foul? We don't have a great angle in the video, but it certainly appears to be foul. Again, if it's fair, it's an out.
A batter who is contacted by a foul fly ball is not out. The ball is dead and the batter charged with a foul ball.
I agree with you that and the hitter made an attempt to get out of the way of the fly ball so yea the umpires got this one wrong
11 to ZIP is all you need to know for that call.
Lindsey....
The catcher is close enough to judge a play, or more importantly, an attempt was within reason, yes F2 would've probably had to lay out for a catch, attempted catch, but a play was possible. The batter is right there, and F2 would've had a shot
We've seen more acrobatic defensive plays than this
The higher degree of probability leans the needle towards INT
Lets not get too deep in the woods.
Correct. But I think you're making it seem like the batter got in the catcher's way, which he didn't.
I have him out for being hit slightly out of the box by a ball that has the potential of going Fair, which is in the NCAA rulebook.
its where the *ball* is when touched fair or foul
The batter is really close to being over home plate which would make it a fair ball.
Not even. Watch it in slo-mo, he is standing right beside the plate, absolutely not in fair territory
Again who cares where BR is? WHERE IS THE BALL? Can’t tell for sure in video and we are not seeing umpires view..
The catcher definitely looked up and saw the batter there and briefly stopped going for the ball. Doubtful he would have caught it anyway, but he definitely alters his attempt due to the batter being there.
I don't have a huge problem with either a foul ball or out being called. I think it is close. When I saw this the other day and was talking with a friend, I had it as "most likely" foul. but the batter, at the very least, comes "close" to leaving the batter's box before coming back into it and getting hit. Benefit of replay, I'm probably calling foul ball. In the moment without replay and I can easily see how an out was ruled. If the BR runs it out as he should, he probably ends up on base safely.
Don’t matter if he stepped out and back into box. Where is ball, where is foul line? That’s it.
Batted ball hits batter/runner in foul territory… By rule I have a foul ball… but also understand that this play is such an insane oddity that the umpires were likely just as shocked as we are at this turn of events and saw a spectacular catch.
Yes… if the ball was completely over foul ground at time of contact with BR helmet….and if umpire did not already rule INT for not getting out of F2 way… then result is foul ball.
I think it was 11-0 and the umpires were looking for outs!
Honestly I say it is interference. You hit the ball even if it’s foul at that moment. Runner made no attempt to move or even go towards 1st.
That doesn’t matter, Batter does not have to run.
I have interference batters out because the batter never attempted to get out of the way. If you watch carefully because the batter is moving more in the way the catcher senses that and ducks out at the last second.
Possible
Look closer. He appears to be in fair territory which means he is out on a fair batted ball. Make sense?
Where is the ball relative to foul line? Doesn’t matter where batters feet are.
Some subjective elements here but in terms of karma, I’m calling it an out.
1. Too cool not to
2. Batter should have been running it out as they really didn’t know where it was
3. Both the 3B and P were hustling to try to help out the Catcher.
Reward goes to those who hustle and all things cool.
Like the avatar… Happy Pride.
It's very hard for me to call either interference or obstruction without contact
Did the ball. contact the batter BEFORE it hit the ground?? Regardless of your opinion of the defensive players position or ability to catch the ball, it is still , interference!! For every rule broken,, theres one punishment to be enforced. Baseball is getting away from this with all these umpires judgment calls. This batter is out for interference regardless of any stupid interpretation of a rule!
@@stevehamman4465 it's not a stupid interpretation of a rule. How did the batter impede the catcher's ability to catch the ball. If the batter was suddenly teleported a hundred miles away the catcher still misses it
@@tedgey4286 we don't know that the catcher still misses it since the batter helmet took that opportunity away. There was NO reason for the batter to be where he was. The defense always has the protection to field a batted ball, and the batter being in the way took that opportunity away.
I think it's an out because if he had headed toward first, they wouldn't have caught it at all. It would've landed foul BUT batter gave up on the play and walked away from first base. The walking away is what turns it for me. Two steps toward first and it doesn't hit him and they don't catch it.
Can’t rule on what if’s… just rule on what actually happened. It’s either INT on batter failure to get out of F2 way, or INT for making contact with live batted fair ball (if ball was fair when touched helmet) or a foul ball (if ball was foul when it touched helmet). What might have happened if BR ran is immaterial here.
U say u can't see how the batter interfered with the catcher. First off the catcher had to find the ball, secondly every little leaguer is taught to run to first base on contact. Him standing there knowing the ball was popped up I believe this was intentional n the umpire(I umpires for several years) made the right call according to the rules.
there is no way that can be a foul ball, its clearly going fair if the batter runner doesn't touch it and he definitely doesn't have legal position in the box, he should've been down the line heading to first. I have this as an out for interference per rule 6.01(a)(11) It is interference by a batter or a runner when a fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching or passing a fielder.
Was the ball fair when it touched him?
@@teebob21 it couldve been, i cant tell from the angle so I'm giving the benefit to the team who did not commit a possible infraction
@@tw1nn319 It is poor form to guess an out into existence.
@@teebob21 I’m just using as much as the information as I can get to assess the situation. All anyone does in any situation to be fair but do see where you are coming from.
I lean toward foul ball.
I think it should be a foul ball. The batter did not know where the ball was, and I do not believe it was interference in the least bit. He wasn't trying to get in the catchers way. He was standing still until he saw the catcher running right towards him. Plus, it hit him in foul territory, so its not a live ball. It's no different if it hits off a net or a dugout and pops up and a fielder catches it.
You are correct if the BALL was completely over foul territory when it hit the BR. Don’t matter where batters feet are it matters where ball is relative to line. We can’t really tell from single camera angle and it’s not view PU has.
The ball hit the batter while he was standing on the foul line. Had the ball dropped, it could have bounced into fair territory - or foul territory. If I were the ump behind the plate, I'd be calling my partner/partners over and asking, "WTH do we do?"
I get what everyone is saying. Yes the batter's feet are in the box...i.e. foul ball as a concept. But the vagueness of the rules you can look at as if it was a fair ball. That ball could have "landed" right in front of home plate...thus an interference. I love rules that after so many years of a sport are so vague. 😂😂
Don’t matter where his feet are WHERE IS THE BALL? it looks very close to being over foul line. The box is not a safe haven if pop u coming down there. BR has to let F2 play the ball.
Foul ball. But cool catch.
We MIGHT see this once again in our lifetime. At 11-0 I don't care what the call is honestly. It shouldn't be interference. It should be a catch honestly just on principle.
There no principle under which this can be a caught live fly ball. It can only be one of three things:
1. Umpire rules BR failed to allow F2 to play the ball.. INT dead ball even before it hits batters helmet.
If umpire rules no INT just misplay by F2 then batted ball remains alive until it touches batters helmet then it for sure is dead and either..
2. Touches helmet while any part of BALL (not the batter) is over foul line or fair ground then INT and BR is out -or-
3. Touches helmet while ball is completely over foul ground then foul ball Batter continues his at bat.
There is no way this is just called a live ball caught pop fly out.. ball was already dead when caught.
It's no different than a tipped ball. If the ball doesn't touch an inanimate object, it's in fair play. The runner is in the field of play, as is the ball. Even though the runner just stood there, it still caused interference with the catcher. The tip off the runners helment kept the ball in play to be caught by another player. Runner out, batter out. That's heads up baseball. I
Batter was walking towards the line that the catcher was on to field the ball. Interference in my book.
I thought he stepped fair trying to stay out of the catcher's way when he got hit. But it is so close that i am not defending that, it js just what i saw.
The mere fact that the catcher initially misplayed the popup does not relieve the batter from any potential interference call. If the batter doesn't need to be standing in the batter's box, he needs to get out of the way (on a popup he has plenty of time to do this) and let the defense do their thing. Otherwise, He should be called out for failing to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball (in this case, a popup) [Rule 6.01(a)(10)].
In fact, the batter should be running towards first base anyway since that ball could wind up being fair even if it initially lands foul untouched.
This is close, but he did not fail to avoid a fielder, he failed to avoid the ball.
I have him out of the box being hit by a ball that has the potential of going Fair, therefore an out.
Change the scenario slightly. Batter swings, the ball lands foul, but spins back towards fair. The batter in the box has the ball hit him with one foot still in the box. The batter does not intend to have the ball hit him, but the minute it does, the ball is dead. Key word here for both is intent, the batter, much like the catcher and the umpire have no idea of where the ball is. The batter did not intend to interfere, made the attempt to get out of the way and did not cause the catcher to miss the play. Foul ball, play on.
So in this new scenario, it’s not fair or foul until touched. If ball touches BR over fair bound BR is out. If BALL is complete in foul ground it’s a foul ball. Yes either way if first contact of batted ball is by BR (just like the video) then immediate dead ball.
If he I'd in the batters box it's a foul ball. If the catcher is trying to catch it and the hitter is in the way its interference
Don’t matter where batter is…where is the ball?
I'm with the rule of cool.
Batter is out! Regardless of the catch, and regardless of any catcher interference possibility. Clearly the batter was in fair territory when it bounced off his head. Fair ball, = he's out!
I think it should be a foul ball, same as if he simply fouled it off his foot while still in the batter's box. I also think interference is an incorrect but justifiable, forgivable call. Obviously, if the call was an out due to a catch, that ump should never be allowed to work again.
The catch is irrelevant. The ball was either foul or fair. If fair, the batter is out. If foul, it is not interference.
The catcher is NOT misplaying the ball.
What's the summary:
No interference by the batter but batter is hit by the batted ball in foul terrirtory - Foul Ball.
If the umpire judged the batter interfered with a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball - He's out for interference.
If the ball hit the batter in fair territory he's out for interference with a batted ball, anyway. But I think the ball was in foul territory when it hit him. The batter wasn't just standing in the batter's box, he was all over and around the batter's box. I wouldn't protect him with being in the batter's box. I think he went in and out of it.
I would say, "Foul!"
I disagree. It's clearly interference, no matter if the ball was going to be fair or not.
If a ball in left field can be considered an infield fly rule and be dropped (thanks Sam Holbrook), I don't see how this can not be deemed interference on the batter with the catcher and making a reasonable attempt to catch the ball.
Did anyone else think it was dumping rain at the start of the video?
No? Just me?
2-16, as provided in the video, says that a fielder has to touch the ball before it hits the offensive player (and says nothing about fair or foul). I don't have a copy of the rules to go look myself, but to me this looks like none of the snippets provided apply so I guess it would still be a catch.
Nope… live batted ball that first touches an BR is a Dead Ball. Defense caught a dead ball so not a legal “catch”. The out has to be INT either by making contact with fair batted ball or because PU judged that BR did not get out of F2s way. Either way ball is already dead by the time the other defender catches the rebound of the Bars noggin.
Of course, as always, if it’s a “strange” play and umpires have to rule, everyone becomes certain the umpires don’t know what they are doing. Amazing most levels of sports get any officials at all.
The rule cited states that it cannot be a catch when ball touches a runner or umpire.
@@MwD676 yes there is no way for this to be a catch. The ball was dead either before it hit batters helmet because umpire ruled INT because batter hindered catcher or if umpire didn’t believe that F2 was hindered then the ball was dead when it hit the batter. Either way the ball was dead when it was caught.
Looks to me like the batter was in fair territory and the ball first touches him over fair territory, so how are people seeing a foul ball here? He also wasn't moving toward 1B, just looking up and then ducking, so I don't see why he should get any benefit from touching the ball accidentally.
That's going to end up a fair ball. It's spinning towards the mound. Batter interefed. Out.
Where the ball will end up is irrelevant. All that matters is where the ball was when it hit the batter. If it was foul, it is not interference.
@@alanhess9306 I get that but logically speaking... He interfered. Now was he in the box though? That's questionable too.
@@JustinBurgan-qw1dn he steps out of the box after hitting the ball so he loses his legal position of being in the batter's box.
Well technically part of the box is actually in fair territory but the common and accepted practice is the whole box is foul so I'd say foul ball
That is 100% incorrect. It is not common and accepted practice that the whole box is foul. No ruleset, with the possible exception of local leagues with local rules made by local fools, defines the batter's boxes entirely foul.
So, I haven't watched the full vid yet, because I wanted to throw out my guess first: The ball appears fair, so isn't the batter out for being out of the box, hit by a fair ball?
Angle sucks, but that would have been a fair ball.
I agree. Had the batter been running, if there were no other runners on base, once the ball hit the ground the catcher would've been best off not playing it and hoping it rolls or bounces foul, because that batter's on first base safely if it doesn't.
Probably? But we don’t call what we think might have happened just rule on location of ball at time of contact with BR. Assuming we already passed on calling INT for not getting out of F2 way…
@@erniepeters1695 no probably from my point of view. Certainly would have been a fair ball. Regardless, the ball was not foul yet. It isn’t considered a fall ball until past 1st or 3rd or defense touches the ball in foul ground before 1st or 3rd. So that is a live ball, that the batter touched. Batter is out. No doubt about it.
@@danielcastiglione5328 exactly.. not fair or foul until moment it touches the batters helmet. Then (assuming not already called INT for failure to get out of the way) it becomes fair or foul at time of contact with helmet. Really nothing to do with what might have happened if the BR was not there.
Surely, it's a foul ball. There was no interference at all, because the batter was avoiding the catcher and moved to do what he is supposed to do to avoid interference. A batter inside the batter’s box (yes, he entered it again) touched by a hitted ball is a foul ball.
I have a question about an ejection that happened 7/08/2011 between the orioles and the Red Sox. The benches cleared after Orioles pitcher Kevin Gregg pointed to Ortiz when he hit a fly out. Gregg tried to hit Ortiz on the previous 2 pitches but missed and a warning was called for both teams. What made the ump throw out Gregg if he only pointed at Ortiz? Is pointing at an opponent worthy of an ejection (unsportsmanlike?) or was it the totality of the situation?
ruclips.net/video/a-26z3K0Hi8/видео.htmlsi=NnaQltQ4NvOF1ySn
The batter was in fair territory when the ball hit his head and the infielder caught the ball so he’s out
I disagree with your interpretation of 2-16. You say "it is not a catch if the ball first hits an offensive player" but the rule says "it is not a catch *if a fielder touches a fly ball that THEN* hits a member of the offensive team". Which did not happen in this case. So unless there is another rule that says what you claimed, is the ball still live until it is caught by the fielder for a regular catch?
out
I'm good with your opinion of foul ball, but I have another question. If there were two strikes on the batter, would this be the same as a caught foul tip for strike three?
Not sure if you'll get a better answer, but the ball is dead as soon as it hits the batter (like when it's fouled off of a batter's foot). The call would be a foul-strike, and would receive another pitch.
No, foul tip by definition has to go straight back to the catcher and be caught. A pop up will never be a foul tip
I have a foul ball
Catcher was moving in the direction of the ball, and the batter did not attempt to get out of the way. Interference!!!
It's pretty clear to me that if the batter had not been standing in that exact spot, the catcher had no chance of actually making the play since he ran the wrong direction at first. I don't know how that applies, so I'd be interested to hear if the ball has to be catchable in order for interference to apply.
But he didn't interfere, so... no interference
@@CurtisDensmore1 Catcher needs to occupy the same place where the ball hit the batter"s head. Interference!
If a ball hits the outfield wall and it's caught, that's not an out, it's a fair ball in play. This should have been a foul ball.
If the batter is still in the batter's box then it's simply a foul ball.
It was a foul ball. When it hits the batters head he is clearly standing 2-3 feet foul of the 3rd baseline.
I have to disagree on the foul ball call here. It's hard to tell conclusively (hence I would say call stands from a review standpoint) however the batter steps backwards before it hits him and looks like he may have been out of the batters box making it a fair ball and an out.
Pausing after seeing play. Was he still in the batter's box? Hit by batted ball. Why didn't he head to first? Would have made it EASILY before THAT landed. Might have gone foul while infield or been caught - could also have been dropped. Not very heads up by batter here despite LITERALLY being heads up here, lol.😂😂😂😂😂
Foul. He was in the batters box
The batter is out when he's hit by a batted ball that has the POTENTIAL to go fair.
You usually see this on a dribbler down the first baseline and the batter running on that baseline.
Here, looking at the video, the batter was in front of the plate and technically out of the box, which should still qualify.
Fair ball and the Batter is out.
He's safe this is baseball not dodgeball doesn't count unless hitter is in field of play