Catcher's Interference

[harmbu]

This happened in the Junior High game under FED rules. After a pitch crosses the plate, the batter swings and hits the catcher's mit. The only thing is that the catcher had already caught the ball when the contact was made with the mit. Catcher's interference was not called and the umpire explained that he cannot call interference when the ball is already in the glove. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but I cannot find it anywhere in the rule book or case book.

Anybody have any answers with rule references?

Thanks

[UmpJM]

harmbu,

This is a little bit of a "HTBT", because there is certainly a degree of "umpire judgement" in this situation. However, I would take issue (in a respectful way, of course) with the umpire's assertion that:

"...he cannot call interference when the ball is already in the glove."

From the J/R discussion of defensive/catcher's interference (specifically what does constitute CI:

"EG: a batter swings belatedly on a fastball and smacks the mitt of a crouched catcher."

So, if a batter is making a legitimate attempt to bat the ball and is fooled to the point where the ball is already in the catcher's glove and he makes contact with the glove, I would say the CI call is definitely in order. Especially if the catcher's glove is over (or nearly over) the plate. If the batter doesn't initiate his swing until the catcher gloves the pitch, I'm certainly not going to give him a CI and we might be having an entirely different discussion.

Bottom line, umpire judgement - but, the ball in the catcher's glove at the time of contact is an incorrect criteria for making that judgement.

JM

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by harmbu
This happened in the Junior High game under FED rules. After a pitch crosses the plate, the batter swings and hits the catcher's mit. The only thing is that the catcher had already caught the ball when the contact was made with the mit. Catcher's interference was not called and the umpire explained that he cannot call interference when the ball is already in the glove. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but I cannot find it anywhere in the rule book or case book.

Anybody have any answers with rule references?

Thanks

1..In FED, it's catcher's obstruction, not interference.

2..In order to have catcher's obstruction against a batter, he has to prevent/hinder the batter's attempt to hit the pitch. If the ball is already in the catcher's mitt, there has been no hinderance.

(A)..Look up the definition of obstruction.

3..If a runner was attempting to advance, now there is batter's interference.

Bob

[UmpJM]

Originally posted by bluezebra

1..In FED, it's catcher's obstruction, not interference.

2..In order to have catcher's obstruction against a batter, he has to prevent/hinder the batter's attempt to hit the pitch. If the ball is already in the catcher's mitt, there has been no hinderance.

(A)..Look up the definition of obstruction.

3..If a runner was attempting to advance, now there is batter's interference.

Bob

Bob,

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]

[GarthB]

"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."

Hey, at least they're consistent. The offense interferes and the defense obstructs. OBR follows that 98% of the time.