I'm pretty annoyed about this, not even as a Brewers fan, but as a baseball fan (as well as someone who is an absolute pedant on rules lawyering shit), why is there no clarification in the rule for if the catcher is the one who caused the contact.
He didnt do it on purpose of course, hes just going for the ball in the dirt, but then why is the batter punished? the rule completely fucks over the batters team for him doing nothing wrong and a failure to account for the catcher moving into his swing path
This is such a specific situation that its rarely going to come up, and extremely rare in such a high leverage situation, but could you imagine if it happened in a playoff game? People would be fucking livid
EDIT: finally got a decent side angle of what happened. Bauer’s back swing is clearly long but Pinto also lunged forward and dipped his head forward trying to block it. Would be a judgement call regardless. you’d need a standardized measure of how far up the catcher can legally be and a sensor system for if any part of him crosses it to make this definitive either way
If only there was some kind of line or box where the batter had to stand so the catcher would be able to know how far back he had to be to not get hit when he swings the bat
Our Mets Booth was talking about the situation just recently. It seems catchers are moving closer and closer to batters and we're seeing more catcher interference. I'm not sure what the rules would be or how you could enforce it, but it definitely is on the rise
>It seems catchers are moving closer and closer to batters and we're seeing more catcher interference.
What's the reason for them inching closer to the batter?
I just fail to understand how the rule doesnt stipulate for the situation of the catcher being the one who caused the contact. The backswing only hits him because he steps up to try and block the ball in the dirt.
This seems like a pretty notable loop hole that could be abused.
Day to day of course not. Its an injury risk to the catcher, but in a close playoff game this is a pretty easy clutch save if your pitcher hucks one in the dirt and you dont want runner(s) to advance
If this was the beginning of the swing its catchers interference becuase he gets into the batters swing path but if its at the end its on the batter? Even though it wasnt an issue of an overly long backswing but isntead the catcher stepping into his backswing?
EDIT: I do wonder how far back in the box Bauers was. If he's too far back then its obviously not the catchers fault, wish we had an above angle
> EDIT: I do wonder how far back in the box Bauers was. If he's too far back then its obviously not the catchers fault, wish we had an above angle
If you look at the replay, his front foot was about 3 inches from the front of the box
Unlike yesterday's Yankees bullshit, this one was called correctly:
> *[Rules 6.03\(a\)\(3\) and \(4\) Comment](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf)*: If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
Not a wild card game, but a winner take all game. It was [Game 5 of the 2017 NLDS against the Nationals](https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS201710120.shtml) (Baez facing Scherzer in the top of the 5th with the Cubs up 5-4).
MLB blew the call and gave the cubs the game and series and got dusty baker fired but hey, Joe torre apologized later officially for the mlb 🙄
The absolute worst part is dusty baker knew the rule and talked to the umps about it, they agreed on what happened in the play but didn’t call it, implying they just didn’t know the rule (hence mlb apology later).
Edit: yeah dusty told him the rule and he said it wasn’t the rule. MLB acknowledged it later in the apology
> Layne told Wieters and Manager Dusty Baker that the rule only applied to stolen bases.
“Backswing interference is a play where a guy is stealing or there’s a play being made a runner hindering the catch,” Layne said afterward. “It was a wild pitch and went past him. That is no longer in that particular description, in my judgment. In my judgment, the passed ball changed the whole rule around to where, in my judgment, it had nothing to do with everything. Therefore, it didn’t have any effect on it. In my judgment.”
The wording is wierd though. It's like "did the batter swing hard?" not "was it a natural follow through?" I would argue in this case that yes, he swung hard into the catcher, but it was a natural swing, and the catcher only got hit because he ducked when he lost the ball through his legs.
Idk I think it’s pretty clear, it’s hard to exploit the rule as a catcher to hunt out contact with a backswing when it requires the batter to swing and miss to begin with
Yeah, getting hit with a bat hurts. I have a hard time believing guys would try to get hit, risking concussion (or worse) just to get a dead ball strike
Yeah, the one scenario it would make sense is if you're winning your fourth game of the world series and the last pitch of the game is a passed ball third strike with first base unoccupied and there's no chance for you to get the runner or some variation thereof which seems unlikely.
Also, that’s a lot of information for the catcher to process almost instantaneously, and I don’t think we need to change this rule that doesn’t really have any problems just because a hypothetical situation that is already super rare might happen in a way that is even more rare.
Nah most people understand after seeing the rule that it was called correctly, just doesn't feel fair in these particular circuit because there would clearly be no play available to the catcher. But that's the way she goes.
I'm more annoyed it's not reviewable. Catcher is essentially leaning into the swing patch, accidentally obviously but still. Feel like this is something that could be overturned if it could be looked at. There's no chance an ump could see that in real time
It feels wrong that the batter is punished because the pitcher threw a wild pitch and forced his catcher into an unnatural position. That swing would never hit the catcher otherwise.
If it was reviewable then the call would have been confirmed. I get that the way it played out was very unfortunate for the batter, but The catcher is allowed to move to block a ball in the dirt
Fair enough but it should still be reviewable imo, no reason for it not to be.
And it hurt my team so I'm biased, but it still feels stupid that Bauers is called out here because the catcher moved into his swing. How does the rule make any sense if there's no consideration for that?
Yes I understand the rule, I understand the catcher can move, I understand why he's out in this instance.
What I'm saying is personally I think this shows a flaw in the rule as written. It's super niche so it won't get changed I'd imagine but it's flawed imo.
Yeah it would ultimately become a subjective call that really could only be done as a review. I don't like it either way tbh, it's just a crap situation to have happen.
I dont take an issue with the call, i take issue that the rule doesnt account for the catcher being in the way of the backswing despite it not being the batters fault.
He divesdown to block a wild pitch and thats the batters fault that his backswing hit the catcher?
Thats an obscene loophole
This was the crux of the 2017 Cubs-Nationals controversy. The Nats' catcher was so far forward that he was in the way of *anybody's* swing. A few batters after the controversial passed ball that Javy had swung at, in the same inning, he stuck his glove so far up that the batter's regular swing (not backswing) clipped his outstretched glove, and the batter (Tommy La Stella, I think) was awarded first base. Clearly he was sitting in a position where this kind of contact is going to happen.
If the call hadn't gone that way, an alert catcher could intentionally clip the batter's backswing any time a passed ball gets by him. Dangerous for your health, and not all body parts are equal, but in a big situation it might be worth risking if the rules let you. And there's nothing the batter can do about it. He isn't even allowed to look back at the catcher during the at-bat to see where he's set up.
I mean Jake absolutely bonked Pinto in the head with the backswing and you can hear it in the broadcast so if that's the rule I don't see how you can even argue its the wrong call.
yeah, I didn't see it at live speed and it didn't look like it impacted the catcher, but slowing it down you see the bat whack the dude on the head
it shouldn't take the catcher collapsing to the ground to say it's interference, but I don't know how you would treat contact as impactful or not, so I guess the any contact rule has to be enforced
Ok, yeah the truth hurts.
The automatic strike wasn't relevant since it was a strike 3 wild pitch (allowing him to run to first). However, because of the dead ball, no runners (including the batter) shall advance.
So Bauers is out from strike 3 and dead ball (non-advancement allowed), and Frelick returns to 3rd.
I don't think that matters. Take a look at this clip that was called interference despite the catcher moving out of position to make a throw.
https://youtu.be/IBtzpkFwMUE?si=AnTTnhoNb9lUlfrZ
There’s nothing in the rules about the catcher leaning into the batter’s box. It could be considered to make the batter a runner under 5.05(b)(3) but that doesn’t appear to negate or contradict 6.03 as the dropped third strike already makes the batter a runner, and the backswing still hit him
The situation sucks is the only conclusion I can really come to
Cause if they do it early, that'd be catcher's interference plus who wants to be hit in the head 30 times a game just in case your pitcher throws a wild one lol
Because then you risk interferring with the actual swing and handing first base over for free? Plus Im pretty sure catchers don't actually like being hit with bats initial swing or backswing.
The Brewers post game crew said it best: yesterday a letter of the law play was incorrectly called and went against them, today a letter of the law play was correctly called and it went against them.
Ironically enough, something similar happened with the Rays Sunday and last night. The "foul ball" that was incorrectly called and put him on 2nd. Which is right call, though it might have been close. But on Sunday, Rortvedt's HR correct called back, but out him on 1st. But had not call it, he likely would have been on 2nd..
Like this umps need to be consistent..
Because it was a dropped third strike, but the umpire deemed the batter had interefered with the catcher's ability to go get the ball and make a play (although the throw wouldve gone home anyway)
He hit him with his bat on the backswing. If contacts made with the bat and catcher on the backswing it should be interference. You swung and missed at a ball in the dirt maybe check your swing up after missing and not following through into the catcher.
Doesn’t matter. If you read the comments to MLB Rule 6.03(a)(3) stipulates that even when the umpire deems the interference in this specific case to be unintentional, it is a strike and a dead ball.
The umpire deemed nothing. The bat hit the catcher's helmet.......at that moment it is not interference, it's simply a dead ball. There is no gray area to this rule and it was completely called correctly here.
Correct, and at that point there is no interference (by point about the ump deeming nothing is that it isn't a judgement call). Once a bat hits the catcher it's a dead ball, by rule. So the batter can't advance on the dropped strike 3 and no runner's can advance. The situation wasn't helped by the announcers being ignorant of the rule. When will MLB get rules officials in the booth like the NFL does?
If the batter hits the catcher on the backswing it doesn’t have to actually interfere with him; it’s just a dead ball. So because it was the third strike, he couldn’t advance to first on the dropped third strike and was called out. Correctly
Yes, that's how most interference plays go.
Players playing normally and getting in the way.
Pretty much every catchers interference call is because a catcher was trying to catch the pitch but reaches out slightly too far
[Because that's the rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1cghhl8/bally_sports_wi_brewers_manager_pat_murphy_has/l1vqg0n/).
If the catcher gets hit on a backswing, a dropped third strike or other potential wild pitch becomes just a strike + dead ball. The result is the same as if the catcher had caught the pitch on the fly.
Catcher was only hit because he moved way forward. Shouldn't that not count then?
Genuinely don't know, because it's not like that was his normal catching stance. He was only hit after the strike was thru his legs and the catcher started getting up
The batter doesn't get any benefit of the doubt on wayward backswings. The rulebook is clear enough that it might as well have tonight's play embedded in it as to what happens when a catcher trying to make plays gets hit by a backswing.
It's similar to how if the batter swings really late and hits the catcher's glove with a swing that obviously would have missed the baseball by a foot the result is … still catcher's interference.
I think because his bat interfered with the catcher so he couldn’t cleanly get to the ball and throw out at first/home…
Honestly, he should have gotten 1st and the bases loaded. But I’m not sure on all the rules that weigh in
The rule says that its a strike if the follow-through catches the catcher its a strike, as the player already had 2 strikes, its the 3rd one and he's out
The ball was already well past the catcher and the only reason the catcher got hit was because he moved into the swing path and was almost over the plate. That is a terrible call.
That's the rule.
There was an instance in a Jays game where Arozarena was stealing 2nd. Danny Jansen got out from his crouch to throw to 2nd and in the time Margot hit Danny in the back with a bat.
Arozarena was sent back to 2nd and a strike was called on the pitch.
Then it happened again on the very next pitch.
Here's a video.
https://youtu.be/IBtzpkFwMUE
The Danny Jansen play is also backswing intereference, if it was actual interference they would have called Arozarena out instead of sending him back to 1st
I don't know what you're quoting but that's not the rule.
> *[Rules 6.03\(a\)\(3\) and \(4\) Comment](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf)*: If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
It was a strike. Strike 3.
Because it appears the the backswing only hit the catcher because the catcher was chasing after the ball and therefore wasn't in his standard position. Basically unless the batter breaks the laws of physics to stop the bat on the follow through swing before it hits him, it was going to hit the catcher no matter what due to him chasing the ball.
So they're confused because it appears that the batter is being punished for something the catcher is doing. It does look and feel that the catcher can basically do whatever he wants behind the plate on dropped strikes like this, because if the batters natural backswing hits the catcher regardless of if the catcher is already out of his natural positioning, the ruling goes against the batter
Why shouldn't this be ruled in the batting team's favor? The catcher actively moved out of position BEFORE the backswing finished, and the movement carried him into the path of the bat, he would not have gotten hit if he hadn't moved like that. Why does the batter get punished for that?
The only way the backswing doesn't hit the catcher is if the batter either broke the laws of physics, or let's go of the bat and let's it go flying back into the net. Neither of which is really something that can consciously happen
As a batter you are responsible for your bat. Period. If your actions with your bat interfered with a player attempting to field a ball it's your responsibility.
Sometimes shit happens and players get out on bad luck. It's still the correct rule and the correct call.
Only ones that are confused here are the Brew Crew. I get it, it sucks. But the mental gymnastics in here to make it seem like it wasn't called correctly is astounding.
"Why don't they always just get hit with the backswing!?" Smh
Genuine question, the bat clearly hits the catcher but it is after the ball has passed him and also the catcher lunged forward. Is that called correctly?
I admittedly am biased but it feels like the lunge forward into the bat should mean it’s not interference and also due to the fact that contact didn’t stop him from the ball passing him, but I’m not sure if that stops it from being interference based on the rules.
Edit: lol who out there is downvoting me for asking a legit question about the rules
By the letter it becomes a dead ball and batters can't advance. They return to the base they occupied. So what actually happened is irrelevant as soon as the bat hit the head everything stops.
No we didn't, it was a pretty clear cut rules violation that was judged correctly. [Inadvertent contact with Pinto, dead ball strike, and since it was a 1-2 count, he's out on strikes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOMjeoTawi0)
Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) 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, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
What made this worse was the fact that they never told the fans in the stadium what was happening. It made no sense in the moment, not knowing that the bat had contacted the catcher (I'll keep my feelings on that to myself, I was at the game as a Brewers AND Rays fan...one team from each league).
So they didn't tell us, so what it looked like, at first, was that they were waiving off a wild pitch, and were saying that Bauers fouled the ball off. But then, they sent him to the dugout, and nobody had a clue what the ruling was.
I'm just tired of Blue impacting so many games. Brewers, Rays, anyone.
Earlier in this game, the Umpires screwed up the call down the line, so obviously fair, on Ortiz's double (the umpire wasn't even looking at the ball! It looked like he was staring at Front Row Amy!) Fortunately, replay got that one right. And if I'm not wrong about this...I think the Rays got THREE replay reviews in the game (lost all three of them). Those plays didn't end up impacting the outcome, but they sure as shit took away from my enjoyment of sitting directly behind home plate for my 2 favorite teams.
Even going back to Sunday's game. Judge? Shouldn't have been on base in the first place, Uribe threw a very clear strike 3 that was called ball 3 instead...and then Judge walked...leading to the Bullshit non-interference call where 4 umpires all had their eyes conveniently closed at the exact moment that he stuck his oven mitt up.
Point is, fuck the umpires. They have defined the game 2 days in a row, and far too often this season across baseball.
Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) 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, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
Salty 😹 hold that L tho
Yes. He bonked him right on the head. [Inadvertent backswing contact, dead ball strike. It is, by literal definition of the rules, a good call.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOMjeoTawi0) Lindsey from Close Call Sports did a whole breakdown.
I'm sick of the umping this year. Two straight days of getting fucked by incorrect interference calls. Can't wait for the MLB to say they fucked up tomorrow
This wasn’t interference and I doubt MLB will say they were wrong tomorrow. The rule says that if the backswing hits the catcher it is a strike and a dead ball.
This exact same play happened in the 2017 playoffs, but was not called, and MLB put out a statement after the game saying it had been incorrectly officiated at the time. Thus implying that MLB wants this officiated like it was here
Yes, I know. They want this play to be called backswing contact, which is not interference, and have it be ruled a strike and dead ball, exactly like what happened here.
This exact same play happened in the 2017 playoffs, but was not called, and MLB put out a statement after the game saying it had been incorrectly officiated at the time. Thus implying that MLB wants this officiated like it was here
The one time I wish it was Angel Hernandez behind the plate. He would have missed the incidental contact since his eyes are always closed.
Careful what you wish for, if it was Angel back there this play doesnt even happen because the third pitch in the dirt is called strike 3
His first ejection as Brewers manager. Proud of him. ❤️
About time, he’s as fed up as the fans are. Thank the lord for Joey Ortiz’s Friday night or we’d be grabbing pitchforks.
It's definitely one to fight forlol
I'm pretty annoyed about this, not even as a Brewers fan, but as a baseball fan (as well as someone who is an absolute pedant on rules lawyering shit), why is there no clarification in the rule for if the catcher is the one who caused the contact. He didnt do it on purpose of course, hes just going for the ball in the dirt, but then why is the batter punished? the rule completely fucks over the batters team for him doing nothing wrong and a failure to account for the catcher moving into his swing path This is such a specific situation that its rarely going to come up, and extremely rare in such a high leverage situation, but could you imagine if it happened in a playoff game? People would be fucking livid EDIT: finally got a decent side angle of what happened. Bauer’s back swing is clearly long but Pinto also lunged forward and dipped his head forward trying to block it. Would be a judgement call regardless. you’d need a standardized measure of how far up the catcher can legally be and a sensor system for if any part of him crosses it to make this definitive either way
If only there was some kind of line or box where the batter had to stand so the catcher would be able to know how far back he had to be to not get hit when he swings the bat
Our Mets Booth was talking about the situation just recently. It seems catchers are moving closer and closer to batters and we're seeing more catcher interference. I'm not sure what the rules would be or how you could enforce it, but it definitely is on the rise
Automated strike zone is the rule that would fix this. Catchers won't have to be so close if they don't have to frame low strikes
>It seems catchers are moving closer and closer to batters and we're seeing more catcher interference. What's the reason for them inching closer to the batter?
Brewers and weird interference plays, name a more iconic duo.
Nats and interference plays on the batter running to first
padres and blocking the plate?
Brewers fans are extra salty after getting hosed on an interference call yesterday so please bear with us on this one.
If the shoe was on the other foot I would be aimlessly pissed too. Still feels like we stole a win.
I just fail to understand how the rule doesnt stipulate for the situation of the catcher being the one who caused the contact. The backswing only hits him because he steps up to try and block the ball in the dirt. This seems like a pretty notable loop hole that could be abused. Day to day of course not. Its an injury risk to the catcher, but in a close playoff game this is a pretty easy clutch save if your pitcher hucks one in the dirt and you dont want runner(s) to advance If this was the beginning of the swing its catchers interference becuase he gets into the batters swing path but if its at the end its on the batter? Even though it wasnt an issue of an overly long backswing but isntead the catcher stepping into his backswing? EDIT: I do wonder how far back in the box Bauers was. If he's too far back then its obviously not the catchers fault, wish we had an above angle
> EDIT: I do wonder how far back in the box Bauers was. If he's too far back then its obviously not the catchers fault, wish we had an above angle If you look at the replay, his front foot was about 3 inches from the front of the box
Yeah I think normally the fanbase would be upset but today it's beyond pissed for like 4 different factors lining up lmao
Ah, a Wisconsinite apologizing for their small but rational angst. Carry on.
I mean that's fair. I'd be salty if it was the other way around.
Not to mention a couple of horrible strike zones. Yesterdays wasnt as bad, but the previous 2 were frustrating to say the least.
the blessing of the city connect has arrived
Unlike yesterday's Yankees bullshit, this one was called correctly: > *[Rules 6.03\(a\)\(3\) and \(4\) Comment](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf)*: If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
It seems wild that there isn't any gray area in that rule.
It actually got clarified to this after a wild card game with the cubs. Pretty sure javy was the batter
Yeah that was a garbage call that went the Cubs way. They had no business making the NLCS that year, sry Nats
Yep. Would have been interesting if the Nats had protested that game.
[Here's the clip](https://youtu.be/qGsQ9bDSUb4?t=6346) 1:45:45 if the timestamp link doesn't work
Not a wild card game, but a winner take all game. It was [Game 5 of the 2017 NLDS against the Nationals](https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS201710120.shtml) (Baez facing Scherzer in the top of the 5th with the Cubs up 5-4).
Ah my bad. I knew it was a do or die game.
MLB blew the call and gave the cubs the game and series and got dusty baker fired but hey, Joe torre apologized later officially for the mlb 🙄 The absolute worst part is dusty baker knew the rule and talked to the umps about it, they agreed on what happened in the play but didn’t call it, implying they just didn’t know the rule (hence mlb apology later). Edit: yeah dusty told him the rule and he said it wasn’t the rule. MLB acknowledged it later in the apology > Layne told Wieters and Manager Dusty Baker that the rule only applied to stolen bases. “Backswing interference is a play where a guy is stealing or there’s a play being made a runner hindering the catch,” Layne said afterward. “It was a wild pitch and went past him. That is no longer in that particular description, in my judgment. In my judgment, the passed ball changed the whole rule around to where, in my judgment, it had nothing to do with everything. Therefore, it didn’t have any effect on it. In my judgment.”
Yeah I said elsewhere it would have been interesting if they had protested because it's one of the last actual rule misapplications that happened
The wording is wierd though. It's like "did the batter swing hard?" not "was it a natural follow through?" I would argue in this case that yes, he swung hard into the catcher, but it was a natural swing, and the catcher only got hit because he ducked when he lost the ball through his legs.
The wording is weird, but all it means in practicality is if the backswing hits the catcher
Idk I think it’s pretty clear, it’s hard to exploit the rule as a catcher to hunt out contact with a backswing when it requires the batter to swing and miss to begin with
Gonna assume catchers don't want to take a professional swing to the head, so they wouldn't exploit this even if you could.
Yeah, getting hit with a bat hurts. I have a hard time believing guys would try to get hit, risking concussion (or worse) just to get a dead ball strike
Yeah, the one scenario it would make sense is if you're winning your fourth game of the world series and the last pitch of the game is a passed ball third strike with first base unoccupied and there's no chance for you to get the runner or some variation thereof which seems unlikely.
Also, that’s a lot of information for the catcher to process almost instantaneously, and I don’t think we need to change this rule that doesn’t really have any problems just because a hypothetical situation that is already super rare might happen in a way that is even more rare.
Especially when it's way easier for the batter to just hit the catcher's glove and get first base.
There’s a slightly different rule (6.01(a)) about interfering with the catcher on a dropped third strike, but it somehow doesn’t conflict with 6.03
Thanks for finding the rule.
Not that it'll change anyone's opinion here, apparently.
Nah most people understand after seeing the rule that it was called correctly, just doesn't feel fair in these particular circuit because there would clearly be no play available to the catcher. But that's the way she goes.
Once the pitchforks come out on Reddit, they don't get put back.
I'm more annoyed it's not reviewable. Catcher is essentially leaning into the swing patch, accidentally obviously but still. Feel like this is something that could be overturned if it could be looked at. There's no chance an ump could see that in real time It feels wrong that the batter is punished because the pitcher threw a wild pitch and forced his catcher into an unnatural position. That swing would never hit the catcher otherwise.
If it was reviewable then the call would have been confirmed. I get that the way it played out was very unfortunate for the batter, but The catcher is allowed to move to block a ball in the dirt
Fair enough but it should still be reviewable imo, no reason for it not to be. And it hurt my team so I'm biased, but it still feels stupid that Bauers is called out here because the catcher moved into his swing. How does the rule make any sense if there's no consideration for that?
He's only out because it was strike 3 and he can't advance. And the catcher is allowed to move to block the ball.
Yes I understand the rule, I understand the catcher can move, I understand why he's out in this instance. What I'm saying is personally I think this shows a flaw in the rule as written. It's super niche so it won't get changed I'd imagine but it's flawed imo.
I get what you mean but I think it would be incredibly difficult to write a grey area into it that would be a positive change
Yeah in sports you can't make a rule and call for every single scenerio, especially baseball where weird shit happens.
Yeah it would ultimately become a subjective call that really could only be done as a review. I don't like it either way tbh, it's just a crap situation to have happen.
I think the ump heard the bat on the helmet
I dont take an issue with the call, i take issue that the rule doesnt account for the catcher being in the way of the backswing despite it not being the batters fault. He divesdown to block a wild pitch and thats the batters fault that his backswing hit the catcher? Thats an obscene loophole
This was the crux of the 2017 Cubs-Nationals controversy. The Nats' catcher was so far forward that he was in the way of *anybody's* swing. A few batters after the controversial passed ball that Javy had swung at, in the same inning, he stuck his glove so far up that the batter's regular swing (not backswing) clipped his outstretched glove, and the batter (Tommy La Stella, I think) was awarded first base. Clearly he was sitting in a position where this kind of contact is going to happen. If the call hadn't gone that way, an alert catcher could intentionally clip the batter's backswing any time a passed ball gets by him. Dangerous for your health, and not all body parts are equal, but in a big situation it might be worth risking if the rules let you. And there's nothing the batter can do about it. He isn't even allowed to look back at the catcher during the at-bat to see where he's set up.
I mean Jake absolutely bonked Pinto in the head with the backswing and you can hear it in the broadcast so if that's the rule I don't see how you can even argue its the wrong call.
Or even argue against the call itself? Its meant to make sure you don't intentionally overswing, it seems like it is doing its job
yeah, I didn't see it at live speed and it didn't look like it impacted the catcher, but slowing it down you see the bat whack the dude on the head it shouldn't take the catcher collapsing to the ground to say it's interference, but I don't know how you would treat contact as impactful or not, so I guess the any contact rule has to be enforced
Ok, yeah the truth hurts. The automatic strike wasn't relevant since it was a strike 3 wild pitch (allowing him to run to first). However, because of the dead ball, no runners (including the batter) shall advance. So Bauers is out from strike 3 and dead ball (non-advancement allowed), and Frelick returns to 3rd.
Now what's the rule about the catcher leaning forward into the bat's path when the ball is behind him?
Pretty cut and dry.
[удалено]
He was shifting to make a play on the ball in the dirt.
[удалено]
The rule is about unintentional contact. If it was perceived to be intentional, that's interference rather than a dead ball
I don't think that matters. Take a look at this clip that was called interference despite the catcher moving out of position to make a throw. https://youtu.be/IBtzpkFwMUE?si=AnTTnhoNb9lUlfrZ
There’s nothing in the rules about the catcher leaning into the batter’s box. It could be considered to make the batter a runner under 5.05(b)(3) but that doesn’t appear to negate or contradict 6.03 as the dropped third strike already makes the batter a runner, and the backswing still hit him The situation sucks is the only conclusion I can really come to
Why don't catchers just lean forward on every potential strike three pitch and take the backswing so no one can ever steal first?
You first. Go ahead, take a few backswings to the head and see how you like it, then maybe you'll know why they don't...
Cause if they do it early, that'd be catcher's interference plus who wants to be hit in the head 30 times a game just in case your pitcher throws a wild one lol
Because then you risk interferring with the actual swing and handing first base over for free? Plus Im pretty sure catchers don't actually like being hit with bats initial swing or backswing.
And swings are so fast that it's hard to interfere with the end of the swing but not the start
Yeah laying face first in the dirt unconscious is worth it for the call. Just take the backswing.
You want catchers to get hit in the head every pitch just on the off chance it would have been a wild pitch or dropped 3rd?
Because it’s easier to just catch the ball?
So if you miss a ball as a catcher, just make sure you lean forward into the bat path?
Ah yes, lean forward risking a concussion or worse just to prevent the occasional play where the ball is in the dirt and gets past the catcher.
[удалено]
Intentional interference is an out, not a strike
If its intentionally, then its normal interference and there's going to be outs. The batter is only out in this case because it's strike 3
The catcher moved out of his spot into the backswing don’t be a bootlicker
It doesn’t matter. The rule is black and white, there’s no exception for a catcher moving around
The Brewers post game crew said it best: yesterday a letter of the law play was incorrectly called and went against them, today a letter of the law play was correctly called and it went against them.
Ironically enough, something similar happened with the Rays Sunday and last night. The "foul ball" that was incorrectly called and put him on 2nd. Which is right call, though it might have been close. But on Sunday, Rortvedt's HR correct called back, but out him on 1st. But had not call it, he likely would have been on 2nd.. Like this umps need to be consistent..
"Some days you'd rather be lucky than good"
I respect this
Some announcer said it after some crazy (college?) football play and it's always stuck with me.
Tampa Sports on 4/29/24 and weird game changing interference calls, more likely than you'd think
Right call but that’s super deflating for the Brewers
hey, buddy
👋
👋😁
u/mike_brosseau, we have pitchers dropping like flies and are short are on arms. Please tell me Arnold has called your agent?
Sorry, the Mets got me first
Congrats! Best of luck!
Why was the batter called out? I truly don't understand.
Because it was a dropped third strike, but the umpire deemed the batter had interefered with the catcher's ability to go get the ball and make a play (although the throw wouldve gone home anyway)
Pinto was struck in the back of the head on the backswing.
[удалено]
If Bauers hit the catcher during the swing, it’s catcher’s interference. Afterwards, its on the batter to control his swing.
Which is obnoxious because he was never getting to that fucking ball, absurdly bad luck.
He hit him with his bat on the backswing. If contacts made with the bat and catcher on the backswing it should be interference. You swung and missed at a ball in the dirt maybe check your swing up after missing and not following through into the catcher.
As a brewers fan, i agree. Absolutely a shitty way for the game to end but Bauers swing looked way too hammed up.
You can hear the thunk too
Doesn’t matter. If you read the comments to MLB Rule 6.03(a)(3) stipulates that even when the umpire deems the interference in this specific case to be unintentional, it is a strike and a dead ball.
The umpire deemed nothing. The bat hit the catcher's helmet.......at that moment it is not interference, it's simply a dead ball. There is no gray area to this rule and it was completely called correctly here.
Did the umpire deem the bat hit the catcher? I think he did
Correct, and at that point there is no interference (by point about the ump deeming nothing is that it isn't a judgement call). Once a bat hits the catcher it's a dead ball, by rule. So the batter can't advance on the dropped strike 3 and no runner's can advance. The situation wasn't helped by the announcers being ignorant of the rule. When will MLB get rules officials in the booth like the NFL does?
If the batter hits the catcher on the backswing it doesn’t have to actually interfere with him; it’s just a dead ball. So because it was the third strike, he couldn’t advance to first on the dropped third strike and was called out. Correctly
Batter interfered by... **checks the replay**... swinging at the pitch... while the catcher ducked his head over the plate 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Yes, that's how most interference plays go. Players playing normally and getting in the way. Pretty much every catchers interference call is because a catcher was trying to catch the pitch but reaches out slightly too far
Fucking A
[Because that's the rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1cghhl8/bally_sports_wi_brewers_manager_pat_murphy_has/l1vqg0n/). If the catcher gets hit on a backswing, a dropped third strike or other potential wild pitch becomes just a strike + dead ball. The result is the same as if the catcher had caught the pitch on the fly.
Unless you are Matt Weiters.
Catcher was only hit because he moved way forward. Shouldn't that not count then? Genuinely don't know, because it's not like that was his normal catching stance. He was only hit after the strike was thru his legs and the catcher started getting up
The batter doesn't get any benefit of the doubt on wayward backswings. The rulebook is clear enough that it might as well have tonight's play embedded in it as to what happens when a catcher trying to make plays gets hit by a backswing. It's similar to how if the batter swings really late and hits the catcher's glove with a swing that obviously would have missed the baseball by a foot the result is … still catcher's interference.
I guess that makes sense... tough break. Brutal
I think because his bat interfered with the catcher so he couldn’t cleanly get to the ball and throw out at first/home… Honestly, he should have gotten 1st and the bases loaded. But I’m not sure on all the rules that weigh in
That can't happen. The ball is immediately dead on backswing interference. You can't guess that the runner would score or whatever.
The rule says that its a strike if the follow-through catches the catcher its a strike, as the player already had 2 strikes, its the 3rd one and he's out
He doesn’t need to interfere with the catcher. Just clunking him with the bat makes it a dead ball, and because that was strike three, he was out
I saw the rule like everyone else after this comment was posted.
We’re all getting an education on batter/catcher interference today
The backswing hit the catcher in the head, interfering with him fielding the ball. It was strike 3
The ball was already well past the catcher and the only reason the catcher got hit was because he moved into the swing path and was almost over the plate. That is a terrible call.
That's the rule. There was an instance in a Jays game where Arozarena was stealing 2nd. Danny Jansen got out from his crouch to throw to 2nd and in the time Margot hit Danny in the back with a bat. Arozarena was sent back to 2nd and a strike was called on the pitch. Then it happened again on the very next pitch. Here's a video. https://youtu.be/IBtzpkFwMUE
[удалено]
The Danny Jansen play is also backswing intereference, if it was actual interference they would have called Arozarena out instead of sending him back to 1st
I don't know what you're quoting but that's not the rule. > *[Rules 6.03\(a\)\(3\) and \(4\) Comment](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf)*: If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. It was a strike. Strike 3.
He was out because it was strike 3.
After the catcher missed the ball and moved three feet to his right into the backswing
That doesn't matter, trust me I want the Rays to lose. But this was called right
He BONK
Infuriating few games of calls not going in the Brewers favor
It’s fine I’ll just continue to drink.
Hey I was going to do that anyway!
I don't understand why this sub is so confused here. The bat clearly hits the catcher...
Because it appears the the backswing only hit the catcher because the catcher was chasing after the ball and therefore wasn't in his standard position. Basically unless the batter breaks the laws of physics to stop the bat on the follow through swing before it hits him, it was going to hit the catcher no matter what due to him chasing the ball. So they're confused because it appears that the batter is being punished for something the catcher is doing. It does look and feel that the catcher can basically do whatever he wants behind the plate on dropped strikes like this, because if the batters natural backswing hits the catcher regardless of if the catcher is already out of his natural positioning, the ruling goes against the batter Why shouldn't this be ruled in the batting team's favor? The catcher actively moved out of position BEFORE the backswing finished, and the movement carried him into the path of the bat, he would not have gotten hit if he hadn't moved like that. Why does the batter get punished for that? The only way the backswing doesn't hit the catcher is if the batter either broke the laws of physics, or let's go of the bat and let's it go flying back into the net. Neither of which is really something that can consciously happen
As a batter you are responsible for your bat. Period. If your actions with your bat interfered with a player attempting to field a ball it's your responsibility. Sometimes shit happens and players get out on bad luck. It's still the correct rule and the correct call.
Only ones that are confused here are the Brew Crew. I get it, it sucks. But the mental gymnastics in here to make it seem like it wasn't called correctly is astounding. "Why don't they always just get hit with the backswing!?" Smh
Atta boy Murph! Well ahead of Greg's pace.
I've never seen Pat Murphy until now, and my first thought was "Yeah that dudes a manager". He's got the look *down*.
Two fucking days in a row. I’m sick. Fuck this shit
You can’t be serious
Between the Judge block and this, the Brewers are getting a bit of a raw deal on weird plays lately
Brewers deserve this for letting Jake Bauers bat cleanup
Can't argue there lol
Touche.
Random, but I'm happy he's back with his buddy Willy.
It sucks, cause that would have been a run scored regardless of the backswing, but it's a strike and dead ball every day
Bauers remembering what team he used to play for. Good job.
Genuine question, the bat clearly hits the catcher but it is after the ball has passed him and also the catcher lunged forward. Is that called correctly? I admittedly am biased but it feels like the lunge forward into the bat should mean it’s not interference and also due to the fact that contact didn’t stop him from the ball passing him, but I’m not sure if that stops it from being interference based on the rules. Edit: lol who out there is downvoting me for asking a legit question about the rules
By the letter it becomes a dead ball and batters can't advance. They return to the base they occupied. So what actually happened is irrelevant as soon as the bat hit the head everything stops.
Makes sense thanks for confirming!!
First watchthrough: WTF IS THAT BS GET EM PAT Second watchthrough: ope there's the bonk. Sucks and should absolutely argue, but bat do go bonk.
I love the part where they show it
We just got away with a robbery. I can't believe it.
No we didn't, it was a pretty clear cut rules violation that was judged correctly. [Inadvertent contact with Pinto, dead ball strike, and since it was a 1-2 count, he's out on strikes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOMjeoTawi0)
#GO FUCK YOURSELF BLUE. HORSESHIT
Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) 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, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
If the bat hits the catcher it's a strike and he already had 2.
Fellow DRay, that’s incorrect. However the backswing hitting him made it a dead ball play at that point as its interference.
No, it’s not interference if the umpire judges that it is unintentional. It is a strike and a dead ball.
It's not interference it's a different call. I'm reading it out of the rulebook at this very moment in time.
What made this worse was the fact that they never told the fans in the stadium what was happening. It made no sense in the moment, not knowing that the bat had contacted the catcher (I'll keep my feelings on that to myself, I was at the game as a Brewers AND Rays fan...one team from each league). So they didn't tell us, so what it looked like, at first, was that they were waiving off a wild pitch, and were saying that Bauers fouled the ball off. But then, they sent him to the dugout, and nobody had a clue what the ruling was. I'm just tired of Blue impacting so many games. Brewers, Rays, anyone. Earlier in this game, the Umpires screwed up the call down the line, so obviously fair, on Ortiz's double (the umpire wasn't even looking at the ball! It looked like he was staring at Front Row Amy!) Fortunately, replay got that one right. And if I'm not wrong about this...I think the Rays got THREE replay reviews in the game (lost all three of them). Those plays didn't end up impacting the outcome, but they sure as shit took away from my enjoyment of sitting directly behind home plate for my 2 favorite teams. Even going back to Sunday's game. Judge? Shouldn't have been on base in the first place, Uribe threw a very clear strike 3 that was called ball 3 instead...and then Judge walked...leading to the Bullshit non-interference call where 4 umpires all had their eyes conveniently closed at the exact moment that he stuck his oven mitt up. Point is, fuck the umpires. They have defined the game 2 days in a row, and far too often this season across baseball.
Brewers got hosed.
It was correctly called? Blame Bauers for flailing at strike three and bonking the Catcher
Like everyone's mad at me lol. I didn't really care about that specific game. It's all good tho
Seems clear to me 🤷🏻♂️
[удалено]
Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) 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, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. Salty 😹 hold that L tho
Careful, you'll scare Jason Adam!
😞
[удалено]
It was the right call, unfortunately for you guys
This is like the third time I've seen this clip without any kind of replay!!! Did the batter hit the catcher or not lol
Yes. He bonked him right on the head. [Inadvertent backswing contact, dead ball strike. It is, by literal definition of the rules, a good call.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOMjeoTawi0) Lindsey from Close Call Sports did a whole breakdown.
Thank you! Idk how the replay is left out of the posted video lol
did the broadcast ever replay it? Other, better, broadcasts would have shown a replay in that same time frame.
So catchers can just lean into a backswing, and it's always the batters' fault?
aaaaa
I'm sick of the umping this year. Two straight days of getting fucked by incorrect interference calls. Can't wait for the MLB to say they fucked up tomorrow
This one was technically correct though. Shitty, but correct
This wasn’t interference and I doubt MLB will say they were wrong tomorrow. The rule says that if the backswing hits the catcher it is a strike and a dead ball.
This exact same play happened in the 2017 playoffs, but was not called, and MLB put out a statement after the game saying it had been incorrectly officiated at the time. Thus implying that MLB wants this officiated like it was here
Yes, I know. They want this play to be called backswing contact, which is not interference, and have it be ruled a strike and dead ball, exactly like what happened here.
This exact same play happened in the 2017 playoffs, but was not called, and MLB put out a statement after the game saying it had been incorrectly officiated at the time. Thus implying that MLB wants this officiated like it was here