Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

[jdmara]

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

[mbyron]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[jdmara]

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

[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

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

If the batter 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.

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.

[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

[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 ...