Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
Manny et. al. - one more time - the problem is that there are people that think there is never CI unless the batter swings. Once you say it's judgement then you legitimize their position because they can now say their judgement is that a non-swing means it couldn't be CI.
|
But Rich, it IS judgment that an umpire uses to decide if there was obstruction or not.
What you're pointing out is simply a misinterpretation of the term "judgment" as it applies here. An umpire who says, "It's my judgment that a non-swing means there wasn't CI/CO" doesn't understand the rule.
It would be like saying, "It's my judgment that a batter who squares and doesn't pull the bat back on a bunt attempt is offering at the pitch." We know that's not the sole criterion to determine if the batter truly attempts to bunt the ball (in baseball anyway; softball is another sad story). It's just a matter of educating those umpires when the batter does offer and when he doesn't.
That's similar here. When the catcher places his mitt on or in front of the plate to catch a pitch and the batter doesn't swing, that doesn't automatically negate that there wasn't CI/CO. We have to use common sense and judgment to decide if the batter didn't swing because he wasn't planning to in the first place, or because he saw that the catcher was preventing him from doing so. If the catcher is so far in front of the plate, that's an easy CI/CO call. In the OP, it's not automatic at all.