Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?
 

First of all, I'm not saying this is what happened in this play but it made me think of the situation.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | NYM@HOU: Turner interfered with, ump misses call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

R1 stealing on the pitch. Batter squares around to bunt. Catcher creeps up on the pitch (aka move closer to the batter to get an advantage on the throw). The batter decides to not bunt and legitimately pulls back his bat back. However, the catcher has crept so far up, the bat makes contact with his glove. At this point I don't think it matter what the continuing action is (Ie there is a pass ball, the catcher is unable to throw out the stealing R1, etc).

Do you have anything on this play? IMO, if the batter is doing what he is suppose to and the catcher is at fault for the contact. So I guess the only two options in my mind are catcher interference or play on. I would assume it needs to be called catcher interference even though the batter wasn't attempting to hit the pitched ball.

Any thoughts?

-Josh

This can't be CI, as F2 did not interfere with the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

You could conceivably have batter interference, as the batter might have interfered with F2's opportunity to play on the runners. Since the runners didn't move up, however, there was no INT.

I think the PU called it a foul ball, which prevented the runners from moving up. If the pitch hit the bat, that's the right call. But it looked to me as if the bat hit the ball after it was already in F2's mitt.

Another option in OBR might be backswing or weak INT. Ball dead, runners return, no outs. That too might have been PU's call -- it would look the same as if he were calling it a foul ball, and yield the same result.

Tough call in real time.

My first thought, from your description and before seeing the play load up in my superslow browser, was that it sounded like catcher's interference (really Obstruction).

However - upon watching it - it actually appears the ball was IN the glove before the bat hit the glove. Not sure if that completely takes catcher off the hook - and also not sure PU could have discerned that - but if the pitch is over, we just have a fielder trying to make a throw...

In full motion, though, I believe I, as PU, would have ruled obstruction on the catcher.

I knew I shouldn't have put that link. I'm speaking purely hypothetical:

R1 stealing on the pitch. Batter squares around to bunt. Catcher creeps up on the pitch (aka move closer to the batter to get an advantage on the throw). The batter decides to not bunt and legitimately pulls back his bat back. However, the catcher has crept so far up, the bat makes contact with his glove. At this point I don't think it matter what the continuing action is (Ie there is a pass ball, the catcher is unable to throw out the stealing R1, etc).

Do you have anything on this play?

-Josh

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

+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.

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. :rolleyes:

FOUL, as it was called.

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.

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

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.

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.

Mike,

Did you watch the video clip?

JM

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

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

mbc,

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

JM

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.

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

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

I did not.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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.

You're right - sorry - it was mbyron.

It is, 100 today. Got a DH tomorrow.

Well I guess you can do what J/R says or rule the correct way. This interp is taught at pro school and has been documented in past PBUC manuals.

Well, we've got MikeStrybel writing that J/R (page 96) says one thing, and UmpTTS43 writing that past PBUC manuals say something else.

I can't find a reference to this situation in either J/R or a 2004 PBUC manual.

Would both of you be willing to post the actual reference? E.g. "4.13 in the PBUC manual", or "J/R chapter 13, Section 1, Interference Without a Play: Return Toss and Backswing".

Quoting the actual text would be even better, since many of us may not have the particluar edition/year of these manuals.

I have both references as well. I paraphrased the ruling from J/R already in addition to stating which page it was on.

Page 96 of the current edition of Jaksa/Roder -

Backswing: A batter's backswing occurs after he has swung through the pitch, and he continues his wing all the way around until the bat reaches the vicinity of the catcher.

It cannot be any clearer. Taking away the bat on an aborted bunt attempt is not a backswing; it does not meet the criteria of trying to hit the ball and then allowing momentum to carry the bat "all the way around". J/R's words, not mine.

Mike,

So, the question is, what do you call if the batter legitimately pulls his bat back after squaring to bunt - late enough that there is no way that he's going to try to swing and with no intent to contact the catcher - and the bat and the catcher's mitt come into contact?

Let's say a runner is attempting to advance on the play.

No intent by either player and the batter has had and unilaterally declined his opportunity to offer at the pitch.

What's the call and why?

JM

John, I thought I addressed this a few posts ago.

He simply declined to bunt. He is still entitled to a full swing and the catcher prevented that from happening. Further, I have seen guys square, a brush back pitch ensues, tha catcher rises as the batter spins away with his bat striking the catcher's mitt. Each time, the PU sends him to first. The onus is on the catcher, if no intent is displayed by the batter. That call comes from J/R, page and rule noted several times.

If I am the defensive coach, I may not like it but the catcher is required to let him hit the ball until it arrives in foul territory. Even then, the catcher must not impede the batter's opportunity to strike at a pitch. Again, that comes from the ruling in the current J/R. CI is not an immediate dead ball so the runner advances at his own risk.

Mike,

To repost your quote from J/R:

J/R explicitly says it is NOT CI.

JM

Okay John, I missed the clairvoyancy lessons in pro school years ago. During that microsecond that the batter pulls his back from a square, I will give him the benefit of the doubt when his bat is contacted by the catcher's mitt. I have seen far too many guys show bunt only to pull back and try a chop swing at the ball, mostly pitchers or guys struggling at the plate. I have seen more than a few get spun by a brush back while squaring and be interfered with by the catcher. If a catcher sticks his mitt into the zone and the bat is hit, I penalize the catcher, unless I see intent from the batter. You are free to penalize the batter or ignore the contact, as you see fit.

A batter does not give up his opportunity to swing at a pitch simply because he pulls back from a bunt. A bunt is not a swing. They are defined and treated very differently. I know that you know this. J/R says that the opportunity to swing must be abandoned. It is not in your play.

I'm taking my son to the batting cage now. He has his final regular season game tomorrow night and I want to see him do well. I think I get more grey hairs watching him pitch than bat, but a Dad always likes to see his son round first safely.

It doesn't take clairvoyance... and at this point I think you're just being difficult. Use the OP video as an example if you need... but the question here is whether if IN YOUR JUDGEMENT as PU the batter is not going to swing after pulling a bunt back - is it still CI. The video is actually perfect for this - the only way we could judge, with relative certainty, that the batter is not going to swing is when the bunt pullback is coming back just barely ahead of the pitch itself.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that if the batter pulls back a bunt significantly earlier than this, with timing such that a swing is possible, and contacts the catcher - it IS CI. The disagreement comes when it is rather obvious there's no time for a swing.

I find this exchange to be irritating. UmpTTS43 wrote: "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'."

You then wrote that "J/R states differently."

Now it turns out that you based that on a definition of backswing interference! No, UmpTTS43 didn't say an aborted bunt attempt is the definition of backswing interference; he said it is considered to be backswing intereference. Considered means: "is treated in the same way as backswing interference".

In no way does J/R refute UmpTTS43 or in fact even discuss this particular situation.

Mike - I was not trying to be difficult. In post #4, a specific question was asked and I addressed it. It had nothing to do with the video. I was then asked by another to reconsider the video and tell me what I would have. I don't see BI. As I stated at least twice now, consider the batter who squares and then is brushed back. He spins inwardly and his bat is contacted by the catcher who is tracking the pitch - that is CI. The OP has something similar. The title of the MLB video is...umpires misses interference call. I did not write that headline, an MLB employee did!

Dave - I cited J/R on the definition of a backswing - that is what UMPTTS43 referred to, remember? He provided no citation, while I did. Saying that OBR considers it as such is not a citation. I also reported J/R's ruling on CI. Further, I addressed the difference between an abandonment of a swing and a bunt, as well. If you can dispute J/R, please show us all. I am merely using the words from the current edition, not creating them.

As noted, if you wish to penalize the batter for this play, go ahead. I won't. That is not arrogance, it is a concession. I don't feel like repeating the same material ad nauseum and trying to convince you to make the same call. J/R states that the onus is on the catcher unless the batter INTENTIONALLY strikes the catcher with his bat while the catcher is on foul territory. Again, read J/R on page 117 and see for yourself. If you still disagree with Chris and Rick, call them. Rick loves discussing plays and giving advice. I have had several discussions with him and his knowledge of the game is amazing. I'm sure he will be happy to edit his book if you convince him he is wrong. He has done so in the past.

By the way, this is backswing interference: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8272771

Cubs versus Yankees on Friday. Yanks have R1 and he is off on the pitch. The batter swings and misses; Soto receives the pitch, stands to throw down to second and the backswing hits the catcher in the back of his head. PU tosses his hands up for 'Time", points at the batter, makes a twirl with his right index finger and sends the runner back to first. Batter remained in the box.

Backswing interference on display.

Was that "twirl" of the index finger a prescribed signal for backswing interference, or was it the PU indicating "Whoopee! I get to call backswing interference!"?
:p

JJ

John, decorum prevented him from doing the moonwalk.