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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

MLBUM does not address this particular point.

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

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).

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.

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.)

My take has always been that once F1 has delivered a legal pitch, it is the batters right to offer at the pitch. If F2 gets in the way and the batter is unable to offer at the pitch, I call obstruction (interference). I have had discussions with managers and/or head coaches but never an argument. I simply tell them that their catcher interfered with the batters right to offer at the pitch.

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."

You've got it right in the second part, but "to prevent a swing, there must be a swing"? Then the swing hasn't been "prevented". When you prevent something you keep it from happening.

As it says in the definition of interference: hinders (which covers interference with the batter but he is still able to hit the pitch) or PREVENTS the batter from hitting the pitch. If he is unable to hit the pitch, not because he didn't swing but because the pitch is in the catcher's glove and never reached him then he has been prevented from hitting the pitch. Not much sense in swinging at something that isn't there.

You mentioned this example before, but I didn't see the logic of it. This is an example of a case that is NOT CI, which can only be so helpful in determining whether a different case IS CI.

So I guess that this is saying that the only way NOT to call CI on this is if the batter "completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt." How would he do that? By stepping out during the pitch? By taking all the way? By just standing there?

Perhaps you can see how adherents of my reading (b) could glom onto this as supporting their reading. They might think that if the batter doesn't swing, he's given up his opportunity to swing, and so according to J/R this would not constitute CI. I think that this muddies the issue further.

Yes.No.

J/R says it is not CI if the batter completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at the pitch. The batter does that by stepping out.

2.00 says it is CI if the catcher prevents the batter from hitting the pitch. If the catcher has caught the pitch in front of the plate, he has surely prevented the batter from hitting it, whether or not he attempts to do so.

Seems somewhat obvious here that your best bet is to call CI because your never going to explain this in 5 words or less, let alone 5 sentences. Call the CI and save all the brohaha for a more defined black and white argument.

Of course, if your looking to dump the HC in the first place, well????????????