Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

[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 That is superseded by a batter having the opportunity to hit the ball prior.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.)

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by 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. ....

Mike,

As Josh clearly stated in Post #4 - the post to which you were replying - the batter had abandoned his effort to hit the ball.

By your logic, you would award the batter in the video clip 1B. I don't believe that's a correct call.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.)

mbc,

It's pretty easy to determine in the video that the batter has no intention of offering at the pitch.

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

As Josh clearly stated in Post #4 - the post to which you were replying - the batter had abandoned his effort to hit the ball.

By your logic, you would award the batter in the video clip 1B. I don't believe that's a correct call.

John, he abandoned his effort to bunt. You and I have seen many players pull back a bunt show and then swing at the pitch. Yes, I would penalize the catcher for contacting the mitt in that instance. Yes, I have done it and NEVER had a coach make a peep.

In response to the video clip, we see a ball that is no longer in fair territory, it has passed the plate and is in the catcher's mitt when contact with the batt is made. The batter has lost his opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch. Look at J/R and see how this is handled.

Now, look at 14-2 (5) in J/R on page 117. It is not catcher's interference if the batter has completely given up his opportunity to swing at a pitch. So, if he squares and then quickly pulls back but the catcher clips his bat on the takeaway, you have...yes, CI.