Under OBR, if a plate umpire is asked to seek help on a check swing, he is obligated to go to a partner for help. It's not an option. Why the umpire in question refused to not seek help I cannot answer.

What checked swing? He called interference on the swing.

Two separate arguments, same game, same team.

Since when?

From the MLBUM:

8.6 CHECK-SWING APPEALS
The Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) provide that the manager or catcher may request the plate umpire to ask a partner for help on a half-swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball. The rule further states that appeals on a half-swing may only be made on a call of ball and when asked to appeal.

The preferred mechanic for asking help on a check swing is for the plate umpire to point assertively with the left arm directly at the appropriate base umpire while asking if the batter swung. This mechanic helps avoid confusion between an appeal and a strike mechanic.

Under the Official Baseball Rules, the plate umpire has an obligation to ask for help when the catcher or manager of the defensive team requests an appeal.

After viewing the video, there is no question that this was catcher's interference. I think the umpire was overly influenced by the fact that the catcher was injured on the play. Perhaps a little sympathy?

The batter was well within the batter's box during the swing. No argument can be made that he stepped across (or on) the plate. In fact, the batter hardly even moved his feet, making an obvious effort only to swipe at the ball with the bat - as is his right to do.

The timing of the batter's swing was consistent with the pitch. It was <b>not</b> a late swing.

The location of the batter's swing was consistent with the location of the pitch.

What aggravated this play was the fact that it was a <b>very poor</b> pitchout. The pitcher threw it too close to the plate forcing the catcher to reach back toward the plate.

Everybody understands the dynamics behind a hit-and-run. The batter is going to swing at ANYTHING. It just so happened that it coincided with a pitchout. It was a BAD pitchout and the catcher got whacked. The pitch was high but not as far outside as is typical of a pitchout. The catcher setup very far outside and he had to reach substantially back toward the plate in order to catch the pitch.

I don't think there is any need to get deep into the batter's mind and try to figure out his intent. He's swinging at ANYTHING! That's his intent! The fact that he hit the catcher's glove is PROOF that he was swinging at the ball. Why was the catcher's glove where it was? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE BALL WAS! It should come as no surprise that the bat also found itself in that location.

The PU blew this call. Unquestionably, it was catcher's interference.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

By the way I personally asked Steve Polermo what manual they use for rule interpretations and it is not the J/R book...it's a Blue MLB rules interpretations (that's not the title of the book) book...he didn't say that what is in J/R is wrong, but for official interpretations on MLB fields, they do not use the J/R book...I'm sure many of you on here knew that...but it was news to me...though I did figure that they had their own book...for the life of me I can't find the dang thing though...since I would also like a copy...strangely enough he didn't let me have his! LOL!!

Two of the umpires on the Joint Committee explained to me that the Committee, which serves as the official authority on rulings, turns to the J/R manual when they need to come up with an official ruling with which they may need help.

While this link doesn't deal with the J/R aspect of it, it is an example of the Joint Committee issuing official rulings.

But it was written by the R in J/R, Rick Roder.:)

Certainly I'm sure they may consult the book, why not, right? but they use their own manual for official interpretations.

So you can read the batters mind?

I have always been coached and I always have coached that in a situation like this, a hit and run with a pitch-out, the batter swings for two reasons. The first, is to try to put the ball in play or foul it off. The second is to keep the catcher back where he should be and not moving forward to catch the pitch sooner and get into postion quicker, like he did here. If the catcher would have stayed back where he should be and not jump into the other batters box, then nothing would have happened. Catcher Interference.

Since when does the Attempt to Hit the ball mean Hit the ball for a HIT. If this was a hit and run, the batters job is to a) get a hit, or B) foul the ball off to protect the runner. Both are legitamate "ATTEMPT's to HIT". BI would be the last thing on my mind until I ruled out every other possibility. And I cannot see how you could rule out CI. I would call batting out of the box before BI.

The umpire adjudged this to be BI. I wasn't there. Those of you who were should continue to argue this.

As for it not being the catcher's job to get in position to make a play on a stealing runner....you must not have been a catcher.

So? Rick was just reporting what happened. That doesn't change what happened.

Well, I guess there is no point to this forum if the only calls we can discuss are calls that we were actually there to see.

Yes I did catch. I'm not saying that he isn't supposed to try to get in postion to make the play. I'm saying that the reason you swing is not to distract the catcher, it is to keep him from stepping FORWARD to catch the ball sooner. Did I try that when I was catching? Of course I did, but I also knew that if I got hit with a bat, it would be CI on me for being up that close.