Collin,
First, don't make up calls. By saying that was a foul ball, you did some damage to your integrity. I suspect that was one of the things that "nobody was happy" with. Now, after a quick scan of rule book & case book, I do not see this exact situation covered. Maybe Roger will see this one and respond. Anyway, you do not have obstruction by the catcher - I'm assuming that the catcher was legally positioned here. You don't have obstruction because at the time on contact (glove & bat), the batter is not permitted to contact the ball - already swung & missed. Do you have interference on the batter? I think so. There is no requirement that the interference be intentional - look at your rule book definition and it sez "offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...." Note that this does not say anything about intent. For your future work, I'd suggest that you break a play like this down sequentially and then deal with it sequentially. Do that here and you have:
1)Strike Three - batter may run if uncaught
2)Interference - batter's contact hindered/confused/ ... the catcher while trying to catch the ball
3)Plate ump - who's top priority is watching the pitch all the way into the catcher's glove - sez "Dead Ball, Strike Three, Batter is out." While pointing at the location of the contact of the bat and the catcher.
If offensive coach questions politely, answer with "Coach, the batter swung & missed, so that was strike three. The batter then inadvertently made contact with the catcher while the catcher was in the act of catching - that's interference and that's why I called dead ball."
__________________
Steve M
|