CR/SFG Catcher or Batter Interference?

[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