CR/SFG Catcher or Batter Interference?

[SAump]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

[TussAgee11]

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.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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.

[DG]

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.

[socalblue1]

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.

[UMP25]

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.

[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?