Catchers Interference

[mbyron]

2008 BRD §269: Batter attempts to create catcher interference
Official Interp (Fitzpatrick): The batter may not deliberately attempt to create a catcher's interference call. Penalty: The ball is dead, strike, and runners do not advance. If the swing hits the catcher, the umpire shall eject the batter. No out is charged unless the batter has two strikes.

[chitownvet17]

Originally Posted by mbyron

2008 BRD §269: Batter attempts to create catcher interference
Official Interp (Fitzpatrick): The batter may not deliberately attempt to create a catcher's interference call. Penalty: The ball is dead, strike, and runners do not advance. If the swing hits the catcher, the umpire shall eject the batter. No out is charged unless the batter has two strikes.

Thank you. But what if his unorthodox swing simply takes him back into the catchers box? What are the parameters (if any) involving the batters swing (not his feet mind you) in regards to this?

[johnnyg08]

batter should change his unorthodox swing. one ejection and i'm sure it won't happened anymore. any swing worth a crap shouldn't have a hitter extending that far back in the swing.

[TussAgee11]

I am not penalizing a batter for his unorthodox swing, unless he is INTENTIONALLY trying to create CI.

Its up to the catcher to not create INT, not the batter to have to avoid the catcher's glove in his swing.

I'd have to see his swing to see what exactly he was doing, but something REALLY funky would have to be going on for me to call a strike and eject instead of CI.

HTBT.

[mbyron]

Tuss has it right: you must judge that the INT is intentional before you call this. The interp actually has a note that you must be "certain," which seems to be a higher standard than most calls.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I am not penalizing a batter for his unorthodox swing, unless he is INTENTIONALLY trying to create CI.

Its up to the catcher to not create INT, not the batter to have to avoid the catcher's glove in his swing.

I'd have to see his swing to see what exactly he was doing, but something REALLY funky would have to be going on for me to call a strike and eject instead of CI.

HTBT.

Correct...but the player would argue that either way that his swing is "unorthodox" but whether or not a hitter's swing is as crappy as that, (assuming the swing really is that bad) he won't be playing much anyway.