CR/SFG Catcher or Batter Interference?
 

Situation from photo on Yahoo Sports:
"Home plate umpire Dan Iassogna, second from right, throws out Colorado Rockies manager Clint Hurdle (13) as Hurdle came out to argue a batter's interference-out on the Rockies' Clint Barnes, at left, against the San Francisco Giants in the sixth inning of a baseball game on Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, in San Francisco."

The dispute came as a result of a pitch out. The batter reached across the plate and swung at the pitch striking the catcher's mitt. The swing was terrible and probably made to delay the catcher's response. The batter may have hit the ball had the catcher not been there. A judgement call had to be made one way or the other, one I believe could go either way. I am interested if anyone has any baseball rule, custom or tradition to help an umpire confused by this particular situation.

Sounds a lot like CI to me. Hurdle may have had a point. 6.08(c).

If the swing was not a viable attempt to hit the ball, then I could see batter's interference, but that's a REAL stretch. He has a right to swing at anything, pitch-out, steal, whatever.

The video is on the Rockies' website, rockies.mlb.com. Its under Barmes batter interference.

The umpire apparently ruled that the batter violated 6.06(c) by "making any other movement that hinder's the catcher's play". He apparently did not think it was an attempt to hit the ball, but an attempt to interfere.

After watching the video replays IMO this was a bad call. Clear CI as the batter COULD have made contact (As evidenced by making contact with F2's glove) without stepping out of the box.

One has to take into consideration here the batter's intent, along with common sense and fair play. Is the batter trying to legitimately make contact with the ball for a hit? If yes, then it's catcher's interference. If no, then it's batter interference. I believe that the video is clear that the batter was attempting to hinder or impede the catcher's attempt to throw on a runner. Therefore, it's batter interference.

J/R explains it by using an example of the batter stepping across the plate to make contact on a pitchout, but I don't believe J/R's example is meant to refer to situations involving ONLY stepping across the plate. Again, if the batter is attempting to hinder the catcher, it's batter interference.

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!

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.

Manager's POV
 

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.

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!

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.

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

Or even an HBP.

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?

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.

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.

You said that it didn't deal with the J/R aspect of it, and I just thought it was funny (like the name Julia Gulia was to Robby Hart in The Wedding Singer) that Rick Roder penned the interpretation. I didn't mean anything by my remark.

That wasn't my point.

We can all state "This what I would do, if this is what happened and this is what I saw."

But those who state that the umpire was completely wrong when he made a judgment call that they weren't there to experience are going far beyond that.

Assuming that's not a rhetorical question, since 1976, according to Jim Evans in Baseball Rules Annotated.

Semi-rhetorical. Steve's answer was enough for me, but thanks.

Anybody know where to get the MLB Casebook that I referred to in my earlier post on this thread? It's called the something like the Professional Baseball Umpire Manual or something like that...I can't find the thing anywhere...thanks guys...baseball is almost done for the year here in MN...Amateur state tournament is starting next weekend and goes through Labor Day weekend, then we're done here except for some off and on fall league stuff...anyway, thanks to anybody who can help me find a copy of this manual.