Catcher catches the pitch in front of home plate

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

You have the correct rule. If the catcher catches the pitch in front of the plate, how can it NOT prevent the batter from hitting the pitch?

Because without an attempt, how would you rule that it prevented anything? There wasn't anything to prevent. You can't use 7.07 either, because that only applies when a runner is stealing home.

The same logic applies to batter's interference. If the batter swings too hard and blocks the catcher with R1 stealing, but the catcher just stands there and doesn't attempt a throw, it is not interference.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Because without an attempt, how would you rule that it prevented anything? There wasn't anything to prevent.

Because of the CI, there wasn't a pitch for the batter to attempt to hit.

The same logic applies to batter's interference. If the batter swings too hard and blocks the catcher with R1 stealing, but the catcher just stands there and doesn't attempt a throw, it is not interference.

No it doesn't.

From J/R: It is catcher's interference if the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch.

Although the rule reference (7.07) and two examples given by J/R both entail a runner coming home (steal & squeeze), any contention that this limits this form of CI to those stated examples is just silly. 7.07 exists to prescribe the additional penalty (balk) for that specific situation. You need go no further than 2.00 for CI.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, this has been hotly debated (ad nauseum) in the past, and the consensus has always been that it is not interference.