Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by jdmara

...the catcher has crept so far up, the bat makes contact with his glove. Do you have anything on this play?

Yes Josh, you would have obstruction on the catcher. The batter doesn't have to commit to a bunt or full swing. (Yes, I know some small ball mandates this but I will presume a non-house rule here.) The catcher has to allow the batter to make an unimpeded swing at the ball though.

I have seen some well coached players execute this play and it is exasperating for the defensive coach.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Yes Josh, you would have obstruction on the catcher. The batter doesn't have to commit to a bunt or full swing. (Yes, I know some small ball mandates this but I will presume a non-house rule here.) The catcher has to allow the batter to make an unimpeded swing at the ball though.

I have seen some well coached players execute this play and it is exasperating for the defensive coach.

Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

JM

+1

Interference and obstruction involve hindering a player's legitimate attempt to make a play. If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED).

JM, in FED presumably you'd have to call BI on this, since FED has no backswing INT rule.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1

Interference and obstruction involve hindering a player's legitimate attempt to make a play. If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)

Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

That's not what I said. Try another translation.

[DG]

FOUL, as it was called.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

Rich,

If the catcher steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has de jure interfered.

If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

Originally Posted by DG

FOUL, as it was called.

DG,

In the play in the video....

1. I am fairly certain the PU never saw that the bat and F2's mitt came into contact.

2. I can not tell for certain whether the ball and the bat ever came into contact.

3. If they did, I am fairly certain that the bat-mitt contact preceded the bat-ball contact.

4. Foul would only be the correct call if the bat-ball contact preceded the bat-mitt contact. (Maybe you saw it differently than I, and I saw it wrong. Like I said, I can't tell for sure from the video.)

5. Who (of the players) "screwed up" here?

6. Who should be held liable?

7. How?

JM

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DG

FOUL, as it was called.

Neither the hypothetical nor the actual play posted has the ball contacting the bat ...

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

JM

Let's be clear, a takeaway is not a backswing. Contact with the bat prior to the batter being able to swing at the ball is an infraction on the catcher. In the play, the author wrote that the catcher crept up so far that contact would occur. That leads me to believe that we have obstruction.

A catcher may not interfere with a batter's attempt to swing at the ball. In NCAA we specifically have a mechanic for resetting on prior to the pitch contact. In Fed, we penalize those who make mistakes and are stupid. The catcher qualifies here.

J/R has a great summary of CI or OBS in Chapter 14, page 117 of the current issue. I see nothing in there that allows for a catcher to crowd a batter so much that his swing cannot be completed.

6.06c has to do with a batter interfering with a catcher's ability to field the ball. That is superseded by a batter having the opportunity to hit the ball prior. In the play, the batter does not do that but the catcher does. I award him first base and follow the guidelines of J/R. In the two times I have seen this play, once in collegiate and the other varsity baseball, neither defensive coach made a peep over the stupidity of their catcher.

[UmpJM]

Mike,

Did you watch the video clip?

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

Did you watch the video clip?

JM

John,
I did. I specifically addressed his question in post #4 though. Backread and you will see that he asks a very specific question about squaring and then taking the bat back for a full swing while the catcher slides up. You will see that I have not confused the issue and am only responding to his request for a decision on that matter.

Enjoying this great summer weather? (I'm gald I moved back from paradise for the most snow in Chicago in years, the rainiest Spring in years and now the coldest start to June in half a century. Uggghhh.

[UmpJM]

Mike,

Read it again. He specifically asked about a batter pulling his bat back from a bunt because he decided not to offer.

If he "showed bunt" and then went to cock his bat to offer with a swing, I would agree that was CI.

JM

[MikeStrybel]

As stated in post #5, he has CI or OBS, whatever you want to call it. The takeaway is part of the swing - the batter is being distracted from his opportunity to then take a full swing at the pitch. The catcher cannot impede it in any way or risk being called for the infraction. J/R substantiates this.

This specific action was also discussed at the Chicago NCAA meetings in January. Prior to the pitch, contact between the bat and catcher's mitt are to be dealt with as, "Time! Reset." On a pitch, you have CI. The catcher must avoid contacting the bat, not the batter must avoid contacting the mitt. The onus is on the defense.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

Read it again. He specifically asked about a batter pulling his bat back from a bunt because he decided not to offer.

If he "showed bunt" and then went to cock his bat to offer with a swing, I would agree that was CI.

JM

Kind of curious how you're going to make this determination. If he hits the catcher on the way back, you're not going to see whether he was going to swing or not - he's already been disrupted.

(Granted, at the MLB or even NCAA level - the speeds are such that the difference is greater - pulling back doesn't give time to swing... but at HS or youth ball, the difference is going to be much harder to determine.)