Is this catcher interference?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Do you really make the catcher wait for the ball to leave the pitcher's hand on an IW?

You're really out of touch if you do.

And the rule only applies to an IW, not a pitchout.

And besides - what's the difference between an IW and 4 pitchouts?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

And besides - what's the difference between an IW and 4 pitchouts?

An IW is counted for official scoring purposes when the catcher extends he gloved hand out for the 4th ball. Once he assumes that position, the rule says that he is supposed to keep both feet in the box until the pitch is released. As explained by Jim Evans above, there is latitude given once the pitcher starts his motion to the plate.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

An IW is counted for official scoring purposes when the catcher extends he gloved hand out for the 4th ball. Once he assumes that position, the rule says that he is supposed to keep both feet in the box until the pitch is released. As explained by Jim Evans above, there is latitude given once the pitcher starts his motion to the plate.

Humor escapes you, I see.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Humor escapes you, I see.

It appeared to be a serious question that brought up a proper answer.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

And besides - what's the difference between an IW and 4 pitchouts?

If you don't know then you don't belong on a field with a game over the 10U level.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

An IW is counted for official scoring purposes when the catcher extends he gloved hand out for the 4th ball.

That would be interesting with a RH batter.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

That would be interesting with a RH batter.

Dash...you're engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

That would be interesting with a RH batter.

Quite correct. I should have written ...extends a hand out. Sorry about that.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Dash...you're engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

MrUmpire, I really don't understand all the animosity. Sure, I've made some posts that had an incorrect view of the rules and I appreciate the corrections. I am here to learn. I think I have also raised some good points, maybe not. But, in all honesty, if you carry that attitude out to the field when you umpire, you aren't doing the reputation of the trade any favors.

[MrUmpire]

Larry, you have no idea how I work games and you have no need for concern.

My attitude towards you? I know you for the troll you are and have seen your work before.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

I am here to learn.

FWIW, and I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended, your general body of work reads to me as if you're here to teach, not here to learn.

On the "CI on a pitchout" issue -- the farther the pitch is from the plate, the less likely the catcher is to interfere with a "possible" swing, so the less likely I am to get the CI, absent some contact.

And, on a practical matter, I don't think I've ever seen a play where I'd even consider CI without the standard "reasonably normal swing hits the catcher's glove."

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, and I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended, your general body of work reads to me as if you're here to teach, not here to learn.

On the "CI on a pitchout" issue -- the farther the pitch is from the plate, the less likely the catcher is to interfere with a "possible" swing, so the less likely I am to get the CI, absent some contact.

And, on a practical matter, I don't think I've ever seen a play where I'd even consider CI without the standard "reasonably normal swing hits the catcher's glove."

That is a very perceptive and fair criticism, Bob. Thank you.