Catcher Interference

[Gre144]

Pitcher in a full wind up. R3 runs towards home as pitcher begins wind up. Pitcher continues with pitch as catcher steps out towards the plate to make the tag on R3. R3 gets tagged out but the home plate umpire calls catcher interference. Was this the right call? Keep in mind that the batter never swung at the pitch. The home plate umpire called catcher interference because the catcher was way out of the catcher box so that he could make the tag on R3. I imagine that there would have been some sort of contact with the batter if the batter made an attempt to swing but this never happened.

Thanks,

Confused

[Edited by Gre144 on May 27th, 2005 at 10:09 AM]

[Macaroo]

It is my understanding that the batter must make some indication that he intended to hit or bunt the ball, even if it is only partially squaring to bunt. There does NOT have to be contact for interference to occur, just preventing the opportunity to swing applies.

If the batter stands there and completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt, no interference has occured.
The umpire in your play may have seen the batter posed as if to bunt.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Macaroo
It is my understanding that the batter must make some indication that he intended to hit or bunt the ball, even if it is only partially squaring to bunt. There does NOT have to be contact for interference to occur, just preventing the opportunity to swing applies.

If the batter stands there and completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt, no interference has occured.
The umpire in your play may have seen the batter posed as if to bunt.

Read OBR rule 7.07...........
The catcher's action with the advancing runner is illegal.
No attempt by the batter is necessary.
Don't make the batter knock off the catcher's head to call an infraction---safety first.

This is catcher's interference and also a balk advancing all runners in OBR. Fed advances only those runners that may have been attempting to steal on the play. Only possibility in Fed is with R3, R2 and R2 attempts no steal during R3's attempted advance---which once actually occurred in a game where I was PU.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Macaroo]

I was using the J/R reference which indicates that some semblance of an intent to hit (bunt) the ball is necessary.
It states that it is not interference if the batter completely gives up his opportunity to swing. It seems their thinking is that F2 didn't actually interfere with anything if the batter was standing there like a statue.

Anyway, the BRD agrees with 7.07 interp, that the catcher's action alone causes interference and a balk, and is likely the accepted way to rule.

[Gre144]

Where in the Fed book does it say that a catcher is obstructing a batter when he leaves the catcher box to make the tag on advancing R3 when there is not contact with the batter.

Also, can a pithcer make a quick pitch to home after starting his full wind-up upon seeing R3 advancing home?

[LMan]

a "quick pitch" is illegal.

The pitcher *may* 'speed up' his delivery in this case as long as he doesnt balk in one of the usual ways.

[Gre144]

What is considered a quick pitch from a full wind-up? There is nothing in the rule book that describes a quick pitch from a full wind up. In a half wind up the idea is that the pitcher must pause before going home but there is no such rule about pausing from a full wind up.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gre144
What is considered a quick pitch from a full wind-up? There is nothing in the rule book that describes a quick pitch from a full wind up. In a half wind up the idea is that the pitcher must pause before going home but there is no such rule about pausing from a full wind up.

WTF is a "half windup?"

The reference to a catcher raching over the plate can be found at 8.1.1F

What OBR calls "quick pitch", FED calls "quick-return pitch." See 6-1-1. It has nothing to do with this play. The pitcher may legally "speed up" his motion during this (or any other) play.

[dddunn3d]

See NFHS, 8-3-1c.:

Each runner, other than the batter-runner (who is governed by 8-1-2) is awarded one base when:
c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e).

Macaroo...

I would think that J/R means that if B1 removes himself from the batter's box in an effort to avoid hindering or interfering with the play, then he has given up his opportunity to swing or bunt at the pitch.

[Saltydog]

Would this be a delayed dead ball since there was a play in process? I agree with 7.07, but 6.08(c) seems to play into this also... does off. get to choose between run scoring and batter being awarded first? Or does the out stand and the batter get first? This would seem to follow the intent since it was the batter interfered with and not the runner. However, from one viewpoint the catcher isn't really interfering with the batter... hopefully he's not going to swing with a buddy coming home (roger he could bunt) ... but instead is using that knowledge to gain an advantage on the runner?
SD
am I really as confusing as this sounds:-)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Saltydog
am I really as confusing as this sounds:-)

Apparently.

R3 scores AND BR gets first.

[Saltydog]

Thanks bob... I thought so:-).

I just thought 6.08c played into this. I managed to find a post from last year by ozzy6900 on Jul 14th which covered the same turf.

"ORB 7.07
If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

What it doesn't say is that the runner from 3rd also gets home. But the writers figured that we would read the part about the pitcher being charged with a balk and award R3 home. By the way the manager does not get to choose his poison on this one as stated in:

ORB 6.08(c)The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference. If catcher's interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter runner missed first base, or a runner misses his next base, he shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 7.04"

[Saltydog]

This thread just kept bugging me. It seemed there was both a CI call and a balk being called at the same time. While I roger 7.07 I'm inclined to say that it really is the wrong reference. I think the real answer to this sitch is 6.08(c). If you keep digging down to the discussion that follows after note 2,

"If the catcher or any fielder interferes with the batter, the batter is awarded first base. If on such interference a runner is trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third base, the ball is dead and the runner on third scores and the batter is awarded first base."

That seems pretty clear.