![]() |
|
|||
Re: Re: Catcher's Interference?
Quote:
1. You are correct. Unlike every other baseball rule code, FED defines the defense's hindrance of the batter's opportunity to legally bat a pitch as "obstruction" rather than "interference". Hey, it's their rules, they can call it whatever they like. 2. Agreed that the catcher must actually hinder the batter's attempt (in the umpire's judgement). The fact that the ball is in the catcher's mitt is an incorrect criteria for judging "hindrance". I offer the extreme example of the catcher who steps out across the plate and gloves the pitch as the batter swings in an ill-conceived attempt to retire a runner who is attempting to steal. The fact that he gloves the pitch prior to the contact does NOT relieve him of his liability for CI (Obstruction in FED). Or, the less extreme example of the catcher who extends his glove into the batter's "legal hitting zone" and manages to catch the pitch immediately prior to the bat contacting his mitt. Again, this should properly be ruled CI (Obstruction in FED). In harmbu's original sitch, the pitch "crosses the plate". Given the location of the batter's box relative to home plate, it is still possible (granted, not likely) that CI (Obstruction in FED) is the proper call. My point is that the fact that the ball is in the catcher's mitt at the time the bat contacts the mitt is not, in and of itself grounds for not calling CI (Obstruction in FED). 3. If, in the umpire's judgement, the batter was not making a legitimate attempt to contact the pitch with his bat, batter interference could be a correct call with a runner attempting to advance. JM [Edited by CoachJM on Apr 24th, 2005 at 01:56 AM] |
Bookmarks |
|
|