How is that lying. The catcher attempted to make a play. It was a wild pitch. Stop trying to act like that rule has anything to do with the play in question.

You are being completely stupid. Baez was a ****ing runner on a dropped 3rd strike and the catcher attempted to make a play.

You are quoting a part of the rule that rules against interference, something that the rule specifically states ISN'T what is called when a batter makes contact with the catcher in his back swing.

Seriously, get the **** out of here. You're not Johnnie Cochran. You can't twist plainly obvious rules to anyone with a third-grade reading level.

Baez interfered with the catcher. The play is dead. Baez swung and missed. He's out and the inning is over because the play is dead. Wieters attempting to make a play is irrelevant because that rule only applies to runners on base and not the batter, and even if the catcher makes the attempt the only thing that happens is that the runner is either tagged out, or the batter is out, and in all cases, the ball is dead thereafter.

If the catcher is interfered with, the batter is always out unless a runner is thrown out on the play where the catcher is interfered with, and in no cases can any runners safely advance.

Get back to me when you can comprehend what you read.

Well why don't you tell me what is wrong about what I read?

If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

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.


Show me what is incorrect. I'll wait.

Right there is what you can't comprehend, idiot. Read the whole ****ing rule. When a batter makes contact with the catcher or the ball in his back swing it is NOT ruled interference. It's ruled a strike.

And in this case it is in the judgement of the umpire whether or not that the batter swung so hard that it carried his backswing into the catcher. Which in this case it didn't because the catcher slid over to block a pitch and into the backswing of the hitter and then tried to make a play on the ball after he missed the block.

Mongoloid.

"The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."--You can't advance on a dead ****ing ball.

Read the rest of the rule, you lying ****ing **** ****. You can't advance on a dead ball.

Butt chug a gallon of Drano, you useless ****ing spore of mold cum.

You are so stupid it hurts.

Is the ball dead before or after the words "in the umpires judgement"?

Just sit your ass back down on your couch with the rest of the Cardinals roster.

No, you ****ing ****, if he hits the head of the catcher on accident in the umpire's judgment, then it's only a strike and the ball is still dead. The ball is always ****ing dead.

"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."

Maybe next time before you run your mouth about someone's reading comprehension you'll actually read the ****ing full rule.

Says the guy who quoted the wrong shit. You still ignore the point that they never ruled that he was he hit because he made a play on the ball.

Must suck watching the Cubs in their 3rd NLCS in a row while your team gets eliminated earlier each year.

Keep moving those goalposts by talking about the Cubs advancing instead of the fact that I'm quoting a rule that you A) don't understand and B) keep misquoting because you're a noxious combination of lying moron ****.

They ****ed up because they didn't see him get hit and call interference.

If I'm wrong, then explain this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rrPdpfq9xnk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you don't see the difference in that play then you can't be helped.

Simple question. Did AJ make a play for the ball?

If he did, then this part of the rule would apply:

"If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called."

Someone is always out in that case, either the runner or batter. So how do the Cubs score those runs if there are three outs?

Notice how it doesn't say, "If the catcher makes a play and the runner is safe the batter is not out."?

It doesn't say "or", it says "and" If the catcher makes a play AND the runner attempting to advance is put out. Those two conditions must be satisfied for your claim to be true, but they aren't.

But hey, maybe you'll have better luck rewriting the rules of the English language to suggest that and actually means "or".

If it did say that, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, and you don't, so take the L, you arrogant ****wad.

Some day you will learn that its in the umpires judgement if the catcher was hit in the backswing and the act of Wieters running after the ball to make a play removed any judgement. The paragraph talking about a catcher making a play is still referring to a batter interfering with the catcher which we have clearly read isn't what is called when the catcher is hit by a backswing.

So what we have learned is that a catcher being hit by a backswing isn't ruled interference and it is in the judgement of the umpire if he was hit. We also learned that if the catcher attempts to make a play on a ball during an INTERFERENCE call and throws a runner out then there is no violation called.

So we have a catcher eliminating any judgement to be made about being hit by going after the ball and trying to make a play. And a bitter Cardinals fan that can't follow along with the paragraphs.

I'll take the W and laugh my way all the way to the NLCS.

The umpires didn't **** it up. Wieters did.

Dane it's not cool to steal Hamas's password and post.