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????

OBR v. FED
 

Okay then, since it is legal to throw the bat at the ball in OBR, what would the result be in the same situation under FED rules, for A, B, and C?http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/O...9031_shrug.GIF

???
 

It's just a swing in a. and b. unless it interferes with a fielder making a play. Nowhere in the original sitch does it say the batter threw his bat at the pitch.

Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch? What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does?

Sit. c. is more complicated and depends more on what the catcher's doing and the batter's intentions. On the cover, I like Roder's "interference without a play" idea, but we have the latitude to judge intent on the batter's part to interfere with the catcher's play.

The very nature of this situation will open up a smokin' Port-O-Let. There will be no PC call and nowhere to hide. Someone's coming out no matter what you rule (or don't rule).

In my opinion, the batter has every right to swing at the pitch and lunging at an outside pitch, pitchout or not, and losing control of the bat as a result of the effort, does NOT constitute throwing the bat at a pitch. Throwing at bat at a pitch, as in the BRD interp., implies, to me, something much more overt and irresponsible. The facts of this situation: the batter was legally positioned in the batter's box, in a. the batter hits the ball, and in b. and c. the batter contacts the mitt of a legally positioned catcher, lead me to believe the pitch was hittable.

D

Well I'm very sorry to see umpires that know what they are going to call, but don't know why.

In sit. B there is no way I'm calling CI for a bat that has been released by the batter and prevents the catcher from making a reasonable catch of the ball, unless it is obvious as hell that the catcher interfered with the swing.

"Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch? What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does? "

I have been asking that same question four times now and haven't got an answer yet.

Where does anything say the bat has to be in the batter's hands at the moment of contact? It doesn't. The lunge/loss or throw are legitimate attempts to hit the ball. The catcher's glove hitting the bat is interference with that attempt because it alters the course of the bat. Why do you think it should be different? Are you sure you're not just grasping for reasons because you don't think it shoud be allowed?


Intentionally trying to get a CI call isn't the issue, it's another discussion. This one is about a legitimate attemot to hit the pitch.

<i>"Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch?"</i>


He can, that's the whole basis.



<i>"What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does?"</i>

Nothing. Why should he be protected?


The batter is entitled to attempt to hit the pitch. The catcher cannot interfere with (obstruct) that attempt.


<i>"I have been asking that same question four times now and haven't got an answer yet."</i>

What you have received is answers you don't like. What you haven't received is the answer you want.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Nov 15th, 2005 at 01:17 PM]

Under ANY circumstances Rich?

Unfortunately I don't think either us have enough rule substatiation to back our opinions up. Maybe you do more then me, but it's not much more.

I know one thing though, if I was coaching the defenseive team , I would have to be tossed.

I read the situation as a BAD pitchout attempt that the batter thought (correctly) that he could reach. As a result of his effort to get to an outside pitch, the bat is inadvertantly released.

And no, not in all cases of bat release situations would this be legal. An intentional release of the bat to interfere is interference. But in the case as described: an inadvertant release of the bat, while legitamately offering at a pitch, is simply a swing, hit or miss (unless it interferes with a fielder making a play).

It would still seem to me that, as long as the bat was not released in a rearward fashion, the catcher's mitt would be NOT where it is supposed to be.

What Coney describes as the batter preventing the catcher from receiving the pitch, implies the bat is released towards the catcher and in that case I would hope I would call batter interference.

I guess it comes down to this, is the batter throwing his bat or is he trying to hit the ball? In my judgment, that difference is key in what I'm calling...and the reason why.

DM

Well put, and it was the point I tryng to make.

Thanks