Catcher's Int on Illegally Batted ball

[eagle_12]

Just wanted to see what the call would be if there was an Illegally batted ball (foot outside box, or on plate Fed ) along with catcher's interference on the swing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by eagle_12

Just wanted to see what the call would be if there was an Illegally batted ball (foot outside box, or on plate Fed ) along with catcher's interference on the swing.

Enforce them both, which means batter to first and other runners advance only if forced or stealing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Enforce them both, which means batter to first and other runners advance only if forced or stealing.

Right: batter to 1B despite the illegally batted ball, since if he's out on the play the CI gets enforced.

[dash_riprock]

And between the bat touching the mitt and the bat touching the ball, the ball is delayed dead. Probably the shortest delayed ball you will ever see.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Right: batter to 1B despite the illegally batted ball, since if he's out on the play the CI gets enforced.

I would enforce the batter's interference if it applied in this situation. If you enforce the play this way, you are by the same token saying it is perfectly alright stepping all the way across the batter's box to swing at a pitchout and make contact with the catcher's glove to be rewarded first base whether the batter strikes the ball or not.

The way you describe it, the batter gets the best of both worlds, irregardless of his actions.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

And between the bat touching the mitt and the bat touching the ball, the ball is delayed dead. Probably the shortest delayed ball you will ever see.

Yeah, barely enough time to stick out your fist!

[kylejt]

What if the batter's back foot were out of the back of the box, thus putting him closer to the catcher? I'll bet we have some different answers now.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kylejt

What if the batter's back foot were out of the back of the box, thus putting him closer to the catcher? I'll bet we have some different answers now.

Well, shame on the umpire for letting the batter start too deep, but I'd have the same ruling.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Well, shame on the umpire for letting the batter start too deep, but I'd have the same ruling.

Kyle does mostly LL - where sometimes the kids stride back toward the catcher.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Kyle does mostly LL - where sometimes the kids stride back toward the catcher.

I do, and I've seen it. They'll start with a narrow stance in the back of the box, and when the pitch comes in actually step out of the back of the box. That's batter's interference, if they contact the glove, with a man on base, yes? If not, why not?

[cviverito]

Originally Posted by kylejt

I do, and I've seen it. They'll start with a narrow stance in the back of the box, and when the pitch comes in actually step out of the back of the box. That's batter's interference, if they contact the glove, with a man on base, yes? If not, why not?

It's not. Reason: because you rule on each issue in the order in which they occur.

In this case, the catchers glove interferes with the batters swing before the bat makes contact with the ball. So you rule on that first. Catchers interference, delayed dead ball. The batter is awarded first only if the continuation of his swing fails to yield a base hit or better, which is what happens here when the batter strikes the ball while one or both of his feet entirely out of the box. So, award first base for the interference. Now the defense has a choice - accept the interference and take the award...or take the out. Guess which one they will take?

Keep in mind the batter is penalized for being out of the box only when he strikes the ball with his bat.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by cviverito

... Now the offense has a choice - accept the interference and take the award...or take the out. Guess which one they will take?

...

Chris,

Fixed it for ya'.

Apparently you had 3 thoughts jumbled.

John

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

.

Bob FED only

What about an illegal bat?

In FED if the batter enters the box with an illegal bat = dead ball and an out.

In other words the CO NEVER happened IF the umpire noticed the illegal bat to begin with.

I do not see the logic when a player hits the ball illegally to begin with or an illegal bat and then getting first base because of the CO.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by cviverito

Keep in mind the batter is penalized for being out of the box only when he strikes the ball with his bat.

If the batter steps out of the back of the box and then strikes the catcher with his bat, I'm grabbing the batter.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by cviverito

The batter is awarded first only if the continuation of his swing fails to yield a base hit or better, which is what happens here when the batter strikes the ball while one or both of his feet entirely out of the box.

So in effect, you're saying it's perfectly legal for the batter to step anywhere he pleases to make contact with the catcher. Using this logic, I'm guessing you would consider it catcher's obstruction if the batter turned around and smacked the catcher in the head with the bat. Same theory applies. Sweeten the pot if the batter puts bat on ball. You can't call it any other way, now can you?

Time! You, first base. You, call an ambulance.