Catcher catches the pitch in front of home plate

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.)

IMO, J/R is a very carefully worded manual. Evidence that J/R supports your (a) is contained in its example #5 in what does NOT constitute CI: "The batter completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch." If J/R supported your (b), I believe it would simply state: "The batter does not attempt to swing or bunt at the pitch."