Catcher Interference

[Robert G]

I just finished a LL game 11& 12, I was Pu.
Runners on 2nd & 3rd B1 swings & miises & literally takes of f2 glove. Coach is screaming for interference so I check with my partener & he says yes there is interference, so I award B1 ist. The defense coach says he hit the glove after he swung on his follow through.Would that be interference? Also in either case if it were interference wouldn't both runners abvance.
I think the offense did not pick up on that.
As a new umpire with things happening so fast even at that level I find catcher interference A diifficult call.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Robert G
I just finished a LL game 11& 12, I was Pu.
Runners on 2nd & 3rd B1 swings & miises & literally takes of f2 glove. Coach is screaming for interference so I check with my partener & he says yes there is interference, so I award B1 ist. The defense coach says he hit the glove after he swung on his follow through.Would that be interference? Also in either case if it were interference wouldn't both runners abvance.
I think the offense did not pick up on that.
As a new umpire with things happening so fast even at that level I find catcher interference A diifficult call.

Unless LL rules are different (and I don't think they are here):

If this indeed happened on the backswing, it cannot be "catcher interference."

1. If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp, it is batter interference; he is out and runners remain; if the contact prevented the catcher from catching the pitch, then it's weak interference: dead ball, runners remain.
2. Unless runners are moving on the pitch or are forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, they do not advance.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Unless LL rules are different (and I don't think they are here):

If this indeed happened on the backswing, it cannot be "catcher interference."

1. If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp, it is batter interference; he is out and runners remain; if the contact prevented the catcher from catching the pitch, then it's weak interference: dead ball, runners remain.
2. Unless runners are moving on the pitch or are forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, they do not advance.

I am unfamiliar with specifics of LL rule and how they differ from OBR, however, under OBR I do not believe you have batter interference unless the actions of the batter interfered with F2 in making a play or preventing a play.

Under OBR, I would not call this batter out in the scenerio you presented. I would likely ask all to be more careful in attempts to prevent injury.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

I am unfamiliar with specifics of LL rule and how they differ from OBR, however, under OBR I do not believe you have batter interference unless the actions of the batter interfered with F2 in making a play or preventing a play.

Under OBR, I would not call this batter out in the scenerio you presented. I would likely ask all to be more careful in attempts to prevent injury.

Just my opinion,

Steve

Steve: An interesting position, to say the least.

Batters walk on four balls. Batters should strike out on four strikes.

Just my opinion.

[Bfair]

Carl, I was saying:

---I don't know LL rules (if they differ from OBR in this point)
---OBR (summarized) says batter interference requires batter to interfere with a catcher's effort to make a play
---I didn't see a catcher's effort to make a play here
---I would not call batter interference in the listed scenerio. I had nothing----regardless of what the coach wanted. I would speak to both players in the interest of safety and to let them know I was aware of the occurrence.


I don't understand your post. Is mine in error?
Please explain.

Steve

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
I don't understand your post. Is mine in error?
Please explain.

Yes, yours is in error. Read OBR 6.06(c) and the attendant casebook comment. A batter making contact with the catcher on the "backswing" after striking at a pitch is interference, unless certain conditions apply in which case it is a dead ball strike. Carl was right. You were wrong. No opinion involved. Just the rules.

Cheers,

Warren

[rex]

Robert,

Don't let the Clampitts(?) and the McCoys get you all twisted up. Read 6.06(c) mostly the last paragraph before 6.06(d). You saw the play, so with the reading of the COMPLETE rule you'll be able to get the answer you want.


rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
Robert,

Don't let the Clampitts(?) and the McCoys get you all twisted up. Read 6.06(c) mostly the last paragraph before 6.06(d). You saw the play, so with the reading of the COMPLETE rule you'll be able to get the answer you want.rex

Yes, but Mr. McDonald, wouldn't it be more helpful if you told us how you would call that play?

BTW: It was the Hatfields and the McCoys.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
Read 6.06(c) mostly the last paragraph before 6.06(d). You saw the play, so with the reading of the COMPLETE rule you'll be able to get the answer you want.

Rex,

Carl gave a more complete answer. I'm sure he did this knowing that Robert was talking about LL (11/12 yrs), and that the LL rule book does NOT include most of the casebook comments that we find in the standard OBR. The paragraph you referenced is a casebook comment. So, your admonition to read the last paragraph before OBR 6.06(d) might actually produce a different result depending on which copy of the rules Robert reads.

BTW, I don't see any Clampett/McCoy or even Hatfield/McCoy type fued in this thread. My response to Bfair (aka Steve Freix) was deliberately brief and to the point, because Steve has a tendency to pounce on every little phrase looking for arguments. In that sense you could say my curt post was an attempt to AVOID the Hatfield/McCoy outcome in this thread. Then along comes Rex to call a Hatfield a Clampett and .... (grin)

Cheers,

Warren

[Jim Porter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Rex,

Carl gave a more complete answer. I'm sure he did this knowing that Robert was talking about LL (11/12 yrs), and that the LL rule book does NOT include most of the casebook comments that we find in the standard OBR. The paragraph you referenced is a casebook comment. So, your admonition to read the last paragraph before OBR 6.06(d) might actually produce a different result depending on which copy of the rules Robert reads.

Cheers,

Warren

Just for the record, the Little League Rulebook doesn't include the casebook comments under 6.06(c), and it also doesn't have a 6.06(d) whatsoever.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Yes, yours is in error. Read OBR 6.06(c) and the attendant casebook comment. A batter making contact with the catcher on the "backswing" after striking at a pitch is interference, unless certain conditions apply in which case it is a dead ball strike. Carl was right. You were wrong. No opinion involved. Just the rules.

Cheers,

Warren

6.06c states: He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or
making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.

Warren, I don't see in the example starting this thread how the batter hindered the catcher's play. The catcher was not attempting any play, and no runners advanced. Batter hits glove on follow through. This is not interference.

Quoted 6.06c attendant casebook 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 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.

Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why?


Steve Hatfield

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
6.06c states: He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or
making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.

Warren, I don't see in the example starting this thread how the batter hindered the catcher's play. The catcher was not attempting any play, and no runners advanced. Batter hits glove on follow through. This is not interference.

Quoted 6.06c attendant casebook 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 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.

Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why?

Mr Hatfield ... er... Freix,

The batter hit the catcher with the bat while he was in the act of fielding the pitched ball. The protection offered a fielder in the "act of fielding" includes not only protection until he gains secure possession of the ball but also protection while he makes any throw immediately following the gaining of that possession.

So, in the case in point the catcher was interfered with because the batter hit him with the bat. If he does that "unintentionally" and BEFORE the catcher has secure possession of the ball, in that specific case it is a dead ball strike only. However, allowing those conditions means that you also accept the corollary i.e. if the hit was "intentional" OR was made AFTER the catcher gained secure possession of the ball, then it is batter's INTERFERENCE by extension.

The casebook comment articulates an EXCEPTION to what would normally be adjudged as an act of interference.

I don't know how you view the fact that a batter hit the catcher with the bat, but on my diamond that's always going to be something! There is an argument that says that if the runners weren't stealing then there was no play to interfere with. Certainly the original scenario doesn't involve runners stealing. However, OBR 6.06(c) involves interference with the catchers FIELDING and THROWING that is classified as ILLEGAL ACTION. It doesn't particularly specify interference with a catcher's throw to retire a stealing runner.

I have to say that hitting the catcher with the bat MUST be considered interfering with either his FIELDING or THROWING, unless there was no intent and it occurs before the catcher has secure possession of the ball in which case the exception applies. It is an ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the penalty for that is that the batter is OUT!

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 15th, 2001 at 11:04 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why? Steve Hatfield [sic]

I don't suppose I'll ever understand why you immediately dismiss any "ruling" I make. If I were in your chapter, I assure you we would never do a game together. I've accused you and your EWS cohorts of an agenda. You've denied that. But if that is true, and you simply disagree because you disagree, then we have an inexplicable situation.

Thousands of umpires for decades have trusted my opinions on the rules of baseball, at whatever level. I get an average of 15 requests every day for rulings; they come from all over the world. (Just today, I solved a problem for Giovanni from Italy. I didn't even know they played baseball in Italy. Only now does it occur to me I should have sent you his email address, and you could have disagreed with my answer -- without even knowing the question.) Even in this Internet age, I still get phone requests from as far aways as Japan. And yesterday, calls from Tampa and New Orleans.

As I am wont to say, when it's Steve and EWS against the world, bet the world.

I'm going to walk through this just as if you were a 16-year-old candidate umpire applying to join the staff of one of my Pony Leagues.

1. It is an axiom of baseball that once the pitch passes the plate, the batter no longer has the right to swing at it.

2. That being so, at that point the catcher cannot interfere with the batter.

3. Batter interference is of two kinds: strong and weak.

4. If the catcher has complete control of the pitch and the backswing smashes into the catcher's glove, that is "strong" interference if there are baserunners (as there are in the inciting play of this thread). If it were not so, batters could always attempt to knock the ball out of the catcher's glove, in the mistaken opinion that would permit a runner to advance.

Note: Since no batter would be called out in a game where Steve Freix was the UIC, I suggest that might lead to dangerous play. (A second kind of weak interference occurs when the batter accidentally interferes with the catcher's return toss.)

But....

5. "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 [my emphasis], it shall be called a strike only (not interference)."

Note: I thought here the OBR language would serve as well as any I might compose on my own.

6. To summarize:

1. Contact before the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "weak" interference, strike only, batter is not out, unless it was the third strike;
2. Contact after the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "strong" interference, batter is out, runners remain.

[rex]

How I would rule you ask. That’s unimportant. For I am the untutored and uninformed that you have so often mentioned. In this situation we’re not playing stump the ump.

Robert wanted the answer to a question. I believe my answer to his question was the best as I gave the rule and it tells how the person who saw the play should call it. (By the rule). I gave no WHAT IFS or examples of others plays that are totally unrelated. I didn’t give a portion of the rule or speak in a parable to empress anyone with my literary prowess. I gave the correct ruling to the person that saw the play and the only person that is capable of giving the correct call.


I was speaking of the Clamitts(?) as in Jeb and the McCoys as in Walter Brennon(?).

Cobber
I just read your most recent post. I got to disagree. How can you say the catcher has full control of a pitched ball in the amount of time it took that bat to travel just short of 360 degrees. Secondly the rule says "before the catcher has securely held" Besides that if the Pros don't call interference on the back swing why on earth would we do it in youth ball?


rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
How I would rule you ask. That’s unimportant. For I am the untutored and uninformed that you have so often mentioned. In this situation we’re not playing stump the ump.

Robert wanted the answer to a question. I believe my answer to his question was the best as I gave the rule and it tells how the person who saw the play should call it. (By the rule). I gave no WHAT IFS or examples of others plays that are totally unrelated. I didn’t give a portion of the rule or speak in a parable to empress [sic] anyone with my literary prowess. I gave the correct ruling to the person that saw the play and the only person that is capable of giving the correct call.

I didn't say you were untutored and uninformed. You gave an astute observation in a private email and followed that with this comment: "A simple philosophy from a simple man." I then asked: "Where the hell is your cracker barrel?"

You've not been shy heretofore about telling umpires what to do. Why all of a sudden are you such a shrinking violet? "I read him the rule, and that's all he needs."

Rookie: Kind sir, if the first play by an infielder results in a dead ball, how do I award the bases?

Rex: That's ordinarily two bases from the time of the pitch, Grasshopper.

Rookie: Kind sir, and what is the "time of the pitch"?

Rex: Uh, you'll have to look that up in the book.

Note: Grasshopper ain't gonna find it in the book. To help along his learning curve he needs a simple answer from a simple man.

BTW: Based on your comment to Warren, if you had told us how you would have ruled, you would have been wrong.