Catcher Interference

[Bfair]

Welcome to eUmpire Rex.

Steve

[Jim Porter]

To You Naysayers:

How would you rule on the following?

R1, no outs. The pitch is delivered, and the catcher securely holds the ball while entirely within the catcher's box. R1 is going nowhere. The batter's late swing carries all the way around and unintentionally contacts the catcher's mitt, sending the ball flying out of the glove and into dead ball territory.

Now, what do you do? Are you guys really telling me that you're going to award bases here?

Yougottabekidding!

Double R Double L and Papa C. are absolutely correct. The described scenario is interference if the ball is securely held by the catcher.

So, you don't believe us, how about some former Pro school rules instructors?

From J/R:

Weak Interference: Return Toss and Backswing:

[...]If a batter contacts the catcher, or his mitt, or the baseball with his backswing, and the catcher has gloved or blocked the pitch, it is interference.[...]

[JJ]

I disagree. It's not interference if nobody tries to advance. It's a dead ball and nobody may advance. NCAA 6-2-d. In PRO it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball" - IMO, if the catcher catches the pitch and the batter's backswing knocks it out of his glove, the catcher has NOT securely held the ball. If no runner is trying to advance I have a dead ball, no interference. Of course, if the catcher catches the ball, and the batter turns around and clubs him because the catcher says, "I'd hate to see your girlfriend if you thought that looked pretty good", THEN I would probably have interference... NAPBL 4-11.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
I disagree. It's not interference if nobody tries to advance. It's a dead ball and nobody may advance. NCAA 6-2-d. In PRO it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball" - IMO, if the catcher catches the pitch and the batter's backswing knocks it out of his glove, the catcher has NOT securely held the ball. If no runner is trying to advance I have a dead ball, no interference. Of course, if the catcher catches the ball, and the batter turns around and clubs him because the catcher says, "I'd hate to see your girlfriend if you thought that looked pretty good", THEN I would probably have interference... NAPBL 4-11.

Let's see: On the one hand we have, in order, Childress, Willson, Porter, Jaksa, Roder and on the other Freix and JJ. I like my chances.

You make an interesting argument.

First, you contend it's not interference because a runner didn't try to advance. That's absolutely irrelevant to the interference statute, which punishes an illegal act regardless. OBR 2.00 Interference (a) makes it clear that the offense may not "hinder" a fielder making a play. Gloving a pitch is making a play. Note the language at 2.00 Obstruction, which also explains what "making a play" is.

Second, you quote the NCAA rule when the book under discussion is the OBR. That's another irrelevant argument.

BTW: This thread has revealed a heretofore undiscovered (because it was unannounced) editorial difference in the NCAA language at 6-2d. Through 1999 the statute read: "before [my emphasis] the pitch is caught." In 2000 the clause became: "as [my emphasis] the pitch is caught." Though the new word does seem to lengthen the time frame for allowing "weak" interference, the editor apparently did not think it significant enough to bring the change to our attention.

Since the OBR language is "before the catcher has securely [my emphasis] held the ball," I don't think there's a millimeter's difference in the two statutes after all.

Finally, here's the most amazing sentence of all. You write:

If the catcher catches the pitch and the batter's backswing knocks it out of his glove, the catcher has NOT securely held the ball."

No sh*t, Sherlock!

That's a joke, right?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 16th, 2001 at 10:22 AM]

[rex]

Different situations call for different answers, and different questions call for different ways of answering. To give Robert the answer to his play would have only given him the answer to that play. To have him read and understand the rule gives the answer to several situations and plays.

BTW. Are you sure? Based on what you read is not necessarily what I would answer. My disagreement to Warren's statement is that he appears to be promoting a cause of interference under any circumstance. And you have already stated that is not a fact. Even though I can find no reference to a "weak" or "strong" interference in any of my limited rules library.

Carl- Remember what the Chief said.


rex

[JJ]

Carl, my determination of "interference" on this play is backed up by NAPBL 4.11. Also by my book learnin' at Wendelstedt's school. It's only what, 6 or 7 to 2? I still like my chances. Find a hundred more on your side and we'll call it even!

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
Carl, my determination of "interference" on this play is backed up by NAPBL 4.11. Also by my book learnin' at Wendelstedt's school. It's only what, 6 or 7 to 2? I still like my chances. Find a hundred more on your side and we'll call it even!

JJ:

It's easy to cite anecdotal evidence from Harry. How about some specific quotes that I can check out with him.

And in case there are people who don't have a 2001 PBUC manual, I'd like to point out that section 4.11 simply copies the language of the OBR with one exception. For the record, here's 4.11 (up to the two mechanics paragraphs):

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that 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 back swing (i.e., the follow-through), it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

Now here's the language from the OBR:

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 before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

Then, there's this passage from the PBUC:

If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher' s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred.

Here's what the OBR says:

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.

Finally, from the PBUC, here is the only "rule" comment that isn't directly from the OBR -- and it is easily inferred from the exact language:

If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.

You'll recall I mentioned that in my earlier post.

Sorry: Your mentioning Harry strikes no fear in my heart. Claiming the PBUC manual supports your position, without quoting the material, also won't get the coon treed. You have a better chance of being pardoned off death row by George Dubyah than you have of winning this argument.

[JJ]

Silly me. I thought the NAPBL was a set of common sense guidelines and clarifications on situations PRO umpires would run into. I guess they issue those books for fun and tell the umpires at some point to ignore them and go by the OBR without exception or question. I now know better.

I'll tell Harry you say hi.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JJ
Carl, my determination of "interference" on this play is backed up by NAPBL 4.11. Also by my book learnin' at Wendelstedt's school. It's only what, 6 or 7 to 2? I still like my chances. Find a hundred more on your side and we'll call it even!

I didn't realize we were voting on this. If no one's running and the batter hits the catcher with the follow-through, I've got nothing.

I guess that makes it seven to three.

[Jim Porter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

I didn't realize we were voting on this. If no one's running and the batter hits the catcher with the follow-through, I've got nothing.

I guess that makes it seven to three.

Bob,

If you've got nothing, then would you award bases in the play I described?

I don't understand you folks. It seems to me you're not digging deep enough. If the follow-through knocks the ball from the catcher's mitt and the runner advances, I don't understand how you can allow this play to stand.

You're actually saying that if the batter strikes the catcher before he gains possession, then it's weak interference - but if he strikes him after he gains possession, it's okay.

I'm utterly baffled.

[rex]

Hay JJ

From what the big boys tell me, At the Evans school they are also taught--"there is no such thing as interference on the back swing". It seems we have a first. Harry and Jim agreeing on something. Ya ever wonder what they might base that on?


rex

[Tim C]

Make it 8 to 3

[JJ]

Jim, I'm NOT saying I've got "nothing". I'm saying it's not interference and I won't award bases. NAPBL (how many times do I have to say this?) 4.11 says, "If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgement, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing (i.e. the follow-through), it shall be called a strike only (NO INTERFERENCE). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can support my stance here, other than to say read the rest of that guideline (4.11) in NAPBL.

I'm done trying to explain my position with facts that seem awfully clear to me, and then getting ripped for it. Carl said my use of Wendelstedt's name didn't scare him - DUH! It wasn't INTENDED to scare him. It was only intended to state where I got my position - that's how they explained it when I went to Wendelstedt's school. Sorry I can't seem to state a position, give references, and then be jacked for it because someone else does not agree. BTW - thanks to the other 2 folks who DO agree!

Next topic, please...

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
Silly me. I thought the NAPBL was a set of common sense guidelines and clarifications on situations PRO umpires would run into. I guess they issue those books for fun and tell the umpires at some point to ignore them and go by the OBR without exception or question. I now know better.

I'll tell Harry you say hi.

I did tell him. He doesn't know who "JJ" is. You'll have to email me your full name.

The PBUC (there is no current NAPBL manual) is exactly what you say it is. I trust it implicitly. None can recommend it more highly than I.

Now -- Explain to me how the material I quoted from your 4.11 citation differs from the language of the OBR. What exactly do we learn from 4.11 that contradicts OBR, which I quote explicitly in support of my position.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I didn't realize we were voting on this. If no one's running and the batter hits the catcher with the follow-through, I've got nothing.

I guess that makes it seven to three.

Bob: I have just one word:

Amazing!