Catcher catches the pitch in front of home plate
 

I was watching a youth baseball game yesterday when one team, in a quasi kind of "pitch out" situation (runner on first base only), had the catcher step up in front of home plate to catch the pitch. The batter was so confused by what the catcher was doing he obviously did not attempt to swing at the pitch. The catcher was basically in front of him at the point he would even consider swinging anyway. Obviously if he had attempted to swing it would have been catcher interference. However, I'm still thinking the umpire could have interpreted the action of the catcher as being a hindrance to the batter attempting to hit, and thus, it would still qualify as catcher's interference. Anyone seen this before? Thanks for your time.

thegreatgame,

As described, CI. No brainer.

JM

Unfortunately, there must be a swing or attempted swing in order to get an interference call on this. JM, can you show me where it says this is interference without an attempted swing?

And not 2.00 INTERFERENCE (b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter
from hitting a pitch.

In Fed ball if the pitcher begins his peimliminay motion and the catcher reaches over the plate, it is considered catchers obstruction.

In FED, OBR and NCAA it is only obstruction (interference) if the catcher pushes the batter or steps on or accross the plate on a squeeze or steal of home.

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.

If it's interference for a squeeze play it shoiuld be interference for that play:

"7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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