Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

[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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

... It is not catcher's interference if the batter has completely given up his opportunity to swing at a pitch. ...

Couldn't agree more. That's what I have been saying. What is it? "Weak interference"? Batter interference? Something else?

...So, if he squares and then quickly pulls back but the catcher clips his bat on the takeaway, you have...yes, CI.

Again, couldn't agree more, as I said in an earlier post (Post #17, 2nd sentence).

So, it would appear we are largely in "violent agreement". The only question is what you would rule in the first case - when the batter HAS completely given up his opportunity and the bat and mitt come into contact as the batter pulls his bat back - like in the video.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I KNOW I'm incorrect. I said it on purpose as I was responding to DG who posted:

"If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)."

to show him that the lack of an offer did not mean there was no interference.

I did not.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

There is much to be gained (or little) from reviewing slo mo replay, numerous times, from an angle the HP umpire does not have. None of us have that luxury. I say FOUL, because that is what was called, ball hit bat before bat hit glove, in the opinion of HP umpire.

This is frivolous discussion. None of us have access to slo mo from another angle, before making a call.

[UmpJM]

DG,

I was not discussing whether or not the umpire got the call right. I concur that is a pointless endeavor.

The question I was trying to explore is what would be the correct call if the ball had NOT hit the bat?

BI? CI? "Weak interference"? Something else?

What's the call and why? Just like the video, only the ball doesn't hit the bat.

JM

[UmpTTS43]

Under OBR, when the batter pulls his bat back on an aborted bunt attempt and the bat hits F2 in a legal position, it is considered "backswing int".

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

The only question is what you would rule in the first case - when the batter HAS completely given up his opportunity and the bat and mitt come into contact as the batter pulls his bat back - like in the video.

JM

John,
A batter must intentionally contact a catcher or his equipment for it to be batter's interference while he is pulling the bat back J/R page 117 14-2-3

IT IS NOT A BACKSWING. J/R defines the backswing is the follow through motion on a swing that goes all the way around the batter's body until it is on the vicinity of the catcher. This does not happen as he is pulling the bat back from an aborted bunt attempt. Call the pitch. If you judge that he deliberately pulled his bat back in a way that impeded the catcher and caused disruption of the play on the runner, you have interference on the batter.

My son's game was played in the lovely drizzle today. It is really hard to wear a coach's hat some days. When is Summer going to be here? Uggghh.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Under OBR, when the batter pulls his bat back on an aborted bunt attempt and the bat hits F2 in a legal position, it is considered "backswing int".

J/R states differently. See page 96 of the current edition.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

DG,

I was not discussing whether or not the umpire got the call right. I concur that is a pointless endeavor.

The question I was trying to explore is what would be the correct call if the ball had NOT hit the bat?

BI? CI? "Weak interference"? Something else?

What's the call and why? Just like the video, only the ball doesn't hit the bat.

JM

Well, I think if batter pulls his bat back and makes contact with catcher, in any manner, that causes catcher to miss catching a pitch, when a runner is stealing, a good case is made for BI.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by DG

I did not.

You're right - sorry - it was mbyron.