|
Mon May 13, 2002, 08:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a difficult time envisioning how this could occur.
If somehow the bat hit the ball and the then the catcher's glove during the batter's forward swing, I would rule it catcher's interference. If, however, the bat hit the ball, continued on the follow through around the batter's body, and then contacted the catcher's glove behind the batter's back, I would not rule that as catcher's interference. Just my opinion, Freix 
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 09:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
??? Pitch must have been WAY inside or your pitcher has a seriously wicked curve. Sounds like a "magic bullet" pitch.
If the catcher's mitt comes in contact with the bat during the act of hitting (not on the follow through as Freix mentioned) then it's inteference regardless of whether the ball was hit first or not. Can you give more detail? I'm really curious how this happened.
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 09:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I had a similar one last year, batter hit dribbler in front of plate, big one handed back swing, hits catcher in back of his head. I called interference, batter out. Batter and his Dad did not take it well.
__________________
DVM
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 01:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I umpire and Manage in minor League and Coach in Majors. At one of our games the opposing Manager tried to tell the umpire that the bat hit the ball before it hit the glove and therefore wasn't catcher's interference. I thought it was but wasn't sure. Thank You for your replies.
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 09:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Van Milligen:
"I had a similar one last year, batter hit dribbler in front of plate, big one handed back swing, hits catcher in back of his head. I called interference, batter out. Batter and his Dad did not take it well." Could you please explain why that was batter interference? Mabey Im missing something.
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 10:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Could you please explain why that was batter interference?
Mabey Im missing something." If he had controlled his bat, and not knocked the catcher to the ground, the catcher had an easy play on him. His interference does not have to be intentional.
__________________
DVM
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 10:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
6.06(c): Clarification:
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interfernece). The ball will be dead, and no runner shall advance on the play.
|
|
Mon May 13, 2002, 10:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I realize that my last post did not refer
to a batted ball, but to a swing and miss. In the case of a batted ball, the interference still has to be intentional per 7.09(h): If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter- runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a FIELDER in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead: the umpire shall call the BR out for the interference, and also the runner closest to home plate. The play described by David did not sound intentional to me. A warning and/or ejection may be in order (sort of like if a batter dangerously throws his bat after hitting the ball) but probably not the interference call.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
