Catcher catches the pitch in front of home plate

[mbyron]

As J/R describes CI (chapter 14), the batter must do something besides stand there and take the pitch. The two examples provided have the batter either "striding" but not swinging, or "partially squared" to bunt.

As described in the OP, the batter is confused and does not attempt to swing. But if he moves at all, I'm getting CI here. The only way I'd ignore this infraction would be if the batter was taking all the way. The benefit of the doubt goes to the batter in this case.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As J/R describes CI (chapter 14), the batter must do something besides stand there and take the pitch. The two examples provided have the batter either "striding" but not swinging, or "partially squared" to bunt.

As described in the OP, the batter is confused and does not attempt to swing. But if he moves at all, I'm getting CI here. The only way I'd ignore this infraction would be if the batter was taking all the way. The benefit of the doubt goes to the batter in this case.

Absolutely. Being confused is not the same as being interfered with. The batter must show some action that he had planned to swing at the pitch.

[johnnyg08]

You can't call it a ball or strike...so you have to have CI...the ball has to cross home plate in order to call it a ball or strike. You can't call "nothing" because you have to call ball or strike on the pitch. Steve, what would you call on the pitch? The hitter can't even attempt a swing because F2 is catching the pitch before it crosses the plate.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As J/R describes CI (chapter 14), the batter must do something besides stand there and take the pitch. The two examples provided have the batter either "striding" but not swinging, or "partially squared" to bunt.

My J/R (2008) has nothing like that in Chapter 14.

J/R gives 6 examples of what does NOT constitute CI. One of them is "the batter "completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch." However, as previously stated, J/R considers stepping in front of the plate as "preventing the batter's opportunity" to offer at the pitch. I think there is a big difference.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

However, as previously stated, J/R considers stepping in front of the plate as "preventing the batter's opportunity" to offer at the pitch.

I looked for that and didn't see it. Where does it say that?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I looked for that and didn't see it. Where does it say that?

Page 117. "It is defensive interference (better known as "catcher's interference) if... (2) 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."

[NFump]

6.08(c).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NFump

6.08(c).

You forgot to add that 6.08(c) doesn't described what interference is, just explains one way a batter becomes a runner and gets first base without liability to be put out.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, since Chris Jaksa is the be-all-end-all guru of all things umpire, he has painted a very broad brush on Rule 2.00 INTERFERENCE (b). Does Evans or MLBUM weigh in on this as well? I did ask for someone to point these things out.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

Having been a member of McGriff's back in the day (wow, we're talking a dozen years ago!), umpire.org since its founding, and this particular site for a great while, I cannot remember any consensus on this particular form of (alleged) CI.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Well, since Chris Jaksa is the be-all-end-all guru of all things umpire, he has painted a very broad brush on Rule 2.00 INTERFERENCE (b). Does Evans or MLBUM weigh in on this as well? I did ask for someone to point these things out.

MLBUM does not address this particular point.

[umpjim]

OC: " Why wasn't that Int." You: "Your batter didn't swing." OC: OK, next time he'll take the catcher's head off."

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Well, since Chris Jaksa is the be-all-end-all guru of all things umpire, he has painted a very broad brush on Rule 2.00 INTERFERENCE (b). Does Evans or MLBUM weigh in on this as well? I did ask for someone to point these things out.

MLBUM says 7.07 invokes the additional penalty of a balk when the catcher interferes with the batter and there is an R3 stealing home. It does not say (or imply) that 2.00 (Interference (b)) is enforced differently just because there is an R3 headed home. That would make no sense at all.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You forgot to add that 6.08(c) doesn't described what interference is, just explains one way a batter becomes a runner and gets first base without liability to be put out.

Because it's defined in Rule 2.00 but just for you....

INTERFERENCE

pertinent part is

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or PREVENTS A BATTER FROM HITTING A PITCH.

Doesn't seem broad to me, it's actually pretty specific. It's exactly what the catcher has done by stepping out in front of the plate. If'n he's still in there ready to hit I gots (b) and I be plyin 6.08(c).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

(2) 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

It seems that people are reading this in two different ways. Here's one:

(a) the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and [thereby] prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch

This reading assumes, perhaps correctly, that F2's being over the plate by itself prevents the batter's opportunity to swing or bunt and should be ruled CI.

Here's a different way some people are reading this:

(b) the catcher is (i) on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch AND (ii) prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch

This reading regards the two clauses as quite distinct and both necessary to call CI. F2's being over the plate does not in itself warrant calling CI. The batter must also do something: there must be at least part of a swing or bunt that F2 prevented from occurring normally.

Dash, you haven't made a case for the first interpretation by simply restating the rule. And, as I said, my J/R (2005) has 2 case plays, in both of which the batter tries to swing or bunt. That's not decisive, but it's not nothing. And it made me think twice here.

I lean toward reading (a), but would like to have some authority back it up. The reason I like (a) is that the second clause does NOT say: prevents the batter from swinging or bunting.

Rather the crucial expression is: "prevents the batter's opportunity to swing." To prevent a swing, there must be a swing; but to prevent an opportunity to swing, there need be no swing. F2's being over the plate precludes the possibility of the batter swinging normally, and that would constitute preventing the opportunity to swing.

So, I'll be looking for something authoritative to decide the question, and in the meantime go with my best guess. (Not that it's a burning issue: I think I've called this once in the last 5 years.)