OK, let's talk about something a bit more vanilla and see how much we all agree/disagree on a more practical matter.

Let's do it in sort of a survey format. If nothing else it will be interesting to see the different opinions. We may accidentally learn something from each other in the process.

Situation: R1, fewer than 2 outs, no count on the batter. The hit & run is on. The defense guesses right and throws a pitchout.

<u>Play</u>: The batter lunges at the outside pitch, the bat comes out of his hands and then he ...
(A) hits a fair ball
(B) misses the ball but the bat hits the catcher's glove (<i>before</i> the catcher had an opportunity to catch the pitch) resulting in a passed ball with the runner advancing to 3rd.
(C) misses the ball but the bat hits the catcher's glove (<i>after</i> the catcher had secured the pitch), knocking the ball loose and resulting in no play possible on R1.

The bat leaving the batter's hands appeared to be more a result of lunging and over-reaching than any obvious attempt to simply throw his bat. Or, would that matter?

Neither the batter nor catcher were positioned illegally at any time. (i.e. batter remained in the batter's box and the catcher was not in front of the plate.)

Ruling for (A), (B), and (C)?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

It's a legal attempt to hit the ball.

A) hit

B) CI

I can't picture how C) would happen but treat it like follow-through interference - dead ball - strike

OK, so you have catcher's interference in (B)? Are you going to allow R1 to stay at 3rd? Can you imagine how much crap an umpire is going to take on this one??? It's not going to be pretty. :-)

In (C), I can see how this could happen. All the batter would have to do is swing just a little bit later (and late swings are quite common on hit & runs) than he did in (B).

Rich, how absolutely BOLD of you to be the first one to chime in! Don't you know it's better to read everybody else's response and then critique how they are wrong?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Enforce the CI. Don't forget that the offense gets their choice of the CI or the play.

David - please explain to us why we would catch a lot of crap from the coaches on B when we call a very clear and obvious CI?

As the poser of the question, for the time being, I'm going to abstain from offering an opinion.

My point is this - whether CI is the right or wrong call - there are going to be some coaches out there who will be of the opinion that their catcher is not responsible for getting out of the way of a thrown bat. You don't think many would complain?

By saying that the umpire would catch some heat from this call was NOT my way of saying that the call is necessarily incorrect. :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Nov 14th, 2005 at 11:59 AM]

Wait a minute here.

I'm reading Section 93 pg 76 of BRD2005. "OFF INTERP 73-93: RUMBLE: If a batter throws his bat toward a pitch, that constitutes a carelessly thrown bat with all attendant penalties. (News #19,3/87)" fed ruling

Taking that into consideration, because I'm not trying to determine the batters intent, I don't see catchers interference here, for B.

But Im open to being convinced otherwise.

Puzzled
 

How do we arrive at CI in B? The batter lost control of the bat, then it hit the catcher's mitt, causing a 2 base passed ball. And the catcher interfered how?

It seems to me, if anything, to punish the batter for interfering with the catcher's fielding of the ball, as in rule 6.06 (c).

If the catcher had stuck his glove in the way of a swinging bat that was in the control of the batter, then we would have CI. I say as soon as the batter threw the bat at the ball, the onus was on him to avoid any interference.

I don't have a copy of the BRD, or a J/R manual to find any other interpretation, however, so I could be way off here.

That's a FED ruling. It's legal to throw the bat at a pitch in OBR.

"How do we arrive at CI in B? The batter lost control of the bat, then it hit the catcher's mitt, causing a 2 base passed ball. And the catcher interfered how?"


It was a legal attempt to hit a pitch (in OBR), that's why.

Rich, are you saying that because the rules do not define this as illegal, it is therefore legal.

I know the batter may not have intented to hit the catchers glove, but I also know he did by not hanging on to the bat, and to boot I now have to give options to the offense and penalize the defense for not being allowed to catch a pitch.

Convince me, better than you have, Rich

Are you trying to say it's ILlegal to throw a bat at a ball in an attempt to hit it in OBR? Not true at all. What do you do in sitch 1 then? It is NOT illegal - sitch 1 is a hit. Sitch 2 is CI. And I can't picture sitch 3 very well.

No I am not trying to say it is illegal.

I am trying to get someone to convince me how throwing the bat and interferring with a defensive player catching the ball, and then penalizing the defense, is LEGAL, according to the rules. Sitch 2

If it's legal to throw the bat in a legitimate attempt to hit a pitch, how can you call the result illegal?

I am not the one that answered the questions about Catchers Interference. I am just questioning how one arrived at the answer.

So I will ask again, convince me, why it is CI when the bat hits the catchers glove, after coming out of his hands.
Would you rule the same for a batter that intentionally tried to cause CI. And how would you tell the difference in each case????