CR/SFG Catcher or Batter Interference?

[johnnyg08]

This looks like CI to me...in my opinion, the umpire missed this call...I'm not sure how he could've ruled BI here...the Rockies mgr...had a good argument here. Ah...what makes the world go around...a tough call in an MLB game...we're all still human!

[UMP25]

How could it be catcher's interference if the batter isn't trying to legitimately make contact for a hit? What exactly is he trying to do here? It sure seems clear that he's attempting to screw up the catcher.

[SAump]

I have attached a link of the manager's comments. I wish I knew how to attach a link to the video replay before it disappears. Perhaps someone out there may know how to do that. I will attach a link to the Rockies home page on mlb.com. Look for: Barmes' batter interference: 350K

http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/NASA...=.jsp&c_id=col

http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/NASA...x.jsp?c_id=col

The manager discusses a problem concerning a check-swing.

[johnnyg08]

ump25...are you a fortune teller? and how many times do you see hitters swing at pitches that they shouldn't swing at? Using that logic, you can't possibly rule BI here...that was a pitch that could have been hit...probably not hit very well, but it could have been hit...you don't know what he was thinking unless you are the hitter!

[UMP25]

Your argument is ridiculous. Umpires are often left with the unenviable task of trying to figure out what a player is thinking. Pitchers throwing at batters is one of the most common examples. Using your logic, we are never to warn or eject someone, since we don't know what a pitcher is thinking.

Baseball players will find every way they can to gain an often unfair advantage, and if it wasn't for the umpires, they'd get away with it every time. There's no way Barmes was making a normal or legitimate attempt to contact the ball for a hit. He was trying to screw up the catcher; therefore, he gets penalized for interfering.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

ump25...are you a fortune teller? and how many times do you see hitters swing at pitches that they shouldn't swing at? Using that logic, you can't possibly rule BI here...that was a pitch that could have been hit...probably not hit very well, but it could have been hit...you don't know what he was thinking unless you are the hitter!

That's why umpires get the big bucks.

As HHH has written in the past, there is precident for a ML umpire ruling that a swing is not an attempt.

With a 2-2 count, a batter swung weakly at a wild pitch that was way over his head enroute to the backstop. Figuring he just had strike three on an uncaught pitch, he took off for first. The plate ump brought him back ruling that he did not attempt to hit the pitch.

If he had gotten away with it, you can bet his next at bat would have ended by HBP.

edited to correct typo

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If he had gotten away with it, you can bet his next at bat would have ended by HPB.

Or even an HBP.

[DG]

How many times have you seen a player swing at a pitchout, with a runner running, and it be a legitimate attempt to hit the ball?

[David Emerling]

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 not 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 very poor 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

[johnnyg08]

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!!

[UMP25]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

[johnnyg08]

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

[3appleshigh]

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

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