How many times have you seen it?

And how many times does that "swing" result in interference? This time it might have, and it was called.

(Full disclosure: I didn't see the play, so I'm not giving my opionion of it. But, I can imagine such a situation where such a call would be the "right" one.)

He still has a right to attempt to hit the ball...pitchers throwing at hitters and this sitch is apples and oranges...we've all been around the game long enough to in MLB when pitchers are throwing at hitters...this was a one time thing...it's not like hitters were doing this the entire game! We can agree to disagree here...that is CI all the way...the only way I would call this exact play BI...would be if the hitter swung ridiculously early or late.

By the way....the batter has no clue that it's a pitchout probably until the last moment where he will decide to swing at the pitch or not...hitters are trained on a hit and run to swing at anything...the batter here made a legit, legal attempt at the pitch here...hitters swing and miss at pitches all the time. In a sitch like this...no matter what the call will be 50% of the players on the field and in the dugout will be pissed...I guess we can agree to disagree...just because this umpire is MLB, doesn't make his call 100% correct, interference/obstruction/etc...are judgement calls...all of what's been said on here is relevant and that's what makes umpiring great...if you know the rules, you have the power/authority to make judgement calls that often times lead to arguments by players/managers on each team. If this was my call, I'm calling interference and not one person on this board can say it would be the wrong call...just like I probably wouldn't argue a whole lot if an umpire called BI...but in my judgement, this is CI, not BI...

I would, because based on what happened in THIS play, it would be the wrong call. For someone who claims not to be able to tell what's in a player's mind, you're being awfully assumptive by now claiming the batter didn't know it was a pitch out. Huh? Of course he did! Just what do you think he was swinging at? He knew it was a pitchout, he made an attempt to mess with the catcher, he interfered.

This opinion has nothing to do with the fact that an MLB Umpire made this call. It has to do with the evidence shown in that replay, evidence which is fairly clear. Even the Jaksa/Roder manual, which, according to the Joint Committee on Training and Evaluation, is the official authority on rulings, explains why situations like this would be batter's interference. I find it amazing that you imply they're wrong as well.

First and foremost, a batter has the right to swing at a pitch and try to hit it. Whether he was doing so to protect the runner or not is immaterial - the pitchout was thrown poorly enough that the hitter had a legitimate chance to hit it. The swing appears to be at the ball, and the batter appears to be looking at the ball. I see absolutely no grounds for BI here. If the batter was looking at the glove or the catcher when swinging, perhaps we have a different case. But if the pitcher can't throw a pitchout far enough away to make it unhittable, I can't see protecting his catcher when the batter does swing at it. I have clear, and blatant, CI on this play.

A swing where the batter has to stretch and stick his bat out with no expected desire of contacting the ball for a hit is not a "legitimate" attempt to hit the ball. It's an attempt to mess with the catcher. The batter knew exactly what he was doing yesterday. These guys aren't stupid, you know. They try this schit all the time.

screw the BI/CI.....
 

I find this, from the same article, more interesting:

Hurdle said it was the second time in the game Iassogna refused to ask for help on a questionable play. The other time came in the first inning, when a Barry Bonds check-swing was called a ball, he said.

"There's no explanation for it all," Hurdle said. "The difficulty I have is that we were just handed a memorandum Thursday about the protocol in which to go about dealing with a check-swing. It let you know that only the catcher and manager can request help. And you can only ask for help if it's called a ball.

"For me, there's the perfect situation -- the pitch was called a ball. I asked nice, I yelled, I screamed, I screamed again."

Following Bonds' check-swing, Hurdle and catcher Yorvit Torrealba appealed to third-base umpire Ron Kulpa. Iassogna and Kulpa did not grant the Rockies' request and let the check-swing stand as a ball, Hurdle said.

EXCEPT that the pitch was very hittable. Batter hit the back of F2's hand without stepping out of box or doing anything unusual - no way to do that unless he could hit the pitch.

F2 stepped up to the front of the LH batters box. Pitch was not very far outside & easily reached by the batter, who hit F2 in the hand IN FRONT of the plate.

IMO bad bad bad call by PU.

Yeah... but they are ALLOWED to "try this schit all the time". Heck - watch that video again... I think if the catcher hadn't stepped forward to catch the ball even with or ahead of the plate, the batter MIGHT have hit the ball.

Edit to add: If a batter contacted a catcher BEHIND the plate on a pitchout, I could see BI. PPS - if he had hit this ball, it wouldn't be the first time a poorly thrown straight slow pitchout was hit.

Not intending to weaken the stance by the agreement of a Coach, but I find myself squarely in the camp of mcrowder, socalblue, & johnnyg that this was a "blown" call - and that the BI call is insupportable under the rules, custom & practice, and official and authoritative opinions. This was clearly an instance of Catcher's Interference.

Greene had his left foot firmly planted in the left-hand batter's box at the time of contact and his mitt was well in front of the tip of home plate.

From the video, it looks like Barmes is tracking the pitch the entire way and likely would have made contact with it had Greene's mitt not got in the way. Both of his feet were (legally) on the ground in his batter's box at the time of contact.

I'm guessing Iassogna was "surprised" that Barmes offered at the pitchout and assumed he MUST have been out of the box when his bat hit the catcher's mitt.

I've (re)read J/R, the JEA, and the MLBUM on the subject and I can't for the life of me figure out what UMP25 could be referring to when he references J/R support for the BI ruling. It's not there.

JM

Oh... well I change my mind then.

:)

He is swinging to give a distraction to the catcher, not to hit the ball, but he happens to hit the mitt. Interference.

Getting help on a check swing is one thing--there sometimes may be a definitive determination of whether the batter "went around," as people often mistakenly say--but determining batter interference in this case lies solely with the plate umpire and his personal opinion and judgment. No other umpire is going to be able to help in such a situation.

I'm not arguing about the CI/BI call. I'm curious about the plate ump's alleged refusal to grant the appeal on the check swing. According to the article, the manager followed the instructions he was given by the league to the letter and in accordance with the rules. Again, according to the article, the PU ignored his request in violation of the rules.

Strange.