Is this catcher interference?

[dileonardoja]

Over 40 men's league game. R1, Defense tries to execute a pitchout. Not so good catcher comes out of his stance way early and receives the ball at least even with the plate getting his momentum to throw to second. I called this interference as the batter had no opportunity to hit pitch (6.08(c)). I had a few words with Def HC but they lived with the call.

I realize it was a pitchout and the batter probably could not have hit the ball but where do you draw the line? If this is not interference what would stop the catcher from going half way to the mound on a pitchout and having an easy shot at R1?

Just wondering if I was being an OOO.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

Over 40 men's league game. R1, Defense tries to execute a pitchout. Not so good catcher comes out of his stance way early and receives the ball at least even with the plate getting his momentum to throw to second. I called this interference as the batter had no opportunity to hit pitch (6.08(c)). I had a few words with Def HC but they lived with the call.

I realize it was a pitchout and the batter probably could not have hit the ball but where do you draw the line? If this is not interference what would stop the catcher from going half way to the mound on a pitchout and having an easy shot at R1?

Just wondering if I was being an OOO.

This: Where was the pitch? The CI rule prohibits F2 from moving over the plate, into the batter's "hitting zone." But if the pitch is 2 feet outside, this can't be CI.

This: F2 must be in the catcher's box when the pitch is released. He can't get far when the pitch is in the air. Moreover, CI has nothing to do with the runner: it's about affording the batter a fair opportunity to strike at the pitch.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This: Where was the pitch? The CI rule prohibits F2 from moving over the plate, into the batter's "hitting zone." But if the pitch is 2 feet outside, this can't be CI.

Big crock.

It's legal to throw the bat at the ball to hit it.

You cannot deny the batter the opportunity to hit a pitch just because it's 2 feet ourside.

[Larry1953]

The Baseball Analysts: The World of Catcher's Interference

Everything you'd want to know about CI from a statistical perspective. A play involving Johnny Bench seems to be somewhat similar to the OP, but it was a case of R3 attempting to steal home. A rule is cited concerning the case of a squeeze or steal attempt at home. A balk is also called in such a case.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This: Where was the pitch? The CI rule prohibits F2 from moving over the plate, into the batter's "hitting zone." But if the pitch is 2 feet outside, this can't be CI.

This: F2 must be in the catcher's box when the pitch is released. He can't get far when the pitch is in the air. Moreover, CI has nothing to do with the runner: it's about affording the batter a fair opportunity to strike at the pitch.

mb, I thought that the requirement that the catcher needed to be in the box until the release of the pitch only pertained to an intentional walk. Although a catcher can move out early for a pitch-out, it does not seem to be in the spirit of the rules to allow him to catch it before it crosses an extended line defined by the leading edge of the plate.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Big crock.

It's legal to throw the bat at the ball to hit it.

You cannot deny the batter the opportunity to hit a pitch just because it's 2 feet ourside.

Rich, he can throw the bat at a pitch 10 feet off the plate. Are you going to call that CI if the bat hits the catcher?

The rules more explicity cover the pitch while its in the strike zone. At what point are we to start using common sense here.

[Larry1953]

Umpire's Resource Center - Rules that Catchers and Plate Umpires Need to Know - Part VII
Former umpire Jim Evans, who heads the “Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring,” offers his perspective on the rule and its history. “The catcher is required to be in the catcher’s box until the pitcher initiates his delivery,” said Evans. “Once the pitcher starts his motion, the catcher is allowed to move out of the box. The rule was originally created when the catcher’s box was much larger, triangular, and implemented to discourage pitchers from pitching around hitters when the intentional walk was not a strategic part of the game.”

Evans’ interpretation is a bit more liberal but more realistic as to the way the game is umpired on the major league level. Evans’ interpretation allows the catcher to move out of the box the moment the pitcher “initiates” his delivery whereas 4.03 (a) restricts the catcher from leaving the box until “the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

allow him to catch it before it crosses an extended line defined by the leading edge of the plate.

I think you meant back edge of the plate.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Umpire's Resource Center - Rules that Catchers and Plate Umpires Need to Know - Part VII
Former umpire Jim Evans, who heads the “Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring,” offers his perspective on the rule and its history. “The catcher is required to be in the catcher’s box until the pitcher initiates his delivery,” said Evans. “Once the pitcher starts his motion, the catcher is allowed to move out of the box. The rule was originally created when the catcher’s box was much larger, triangular, and implemented to discourage pitchers from pitching around hitters when the intentional walk was not a strategic part of the game.”

Evans’ interpretation is a bit more liberal but more realistic as to the way the game is umpired on the major league level. Evans’ interpretation allows the catcher to move out of the box the moment the pitcher “initiates” his delivery whereas 4.03 (a) restricts the catcher from leaving the box until “the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

When the rule book reads "unless Evans says differently" than I will start following what he has to say.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Rich, he can throw the bat at a pitch 10 feet off the plate. Are you going to call that CI if the bat hits the catcher?

The rules more explicity cover the pitch while its in the strike zone. At what point are we to start using common sense here.

If the catcher gets in the way of the bat it's CI.

The rule is 6.08(c) and there is nothing about the strike zone. The strike zone is explicitly not mentioned at all in the rule or the comments. What there is is:

The catcher or any fielder interferes with him.

If the catcher hinders the batter's ability to hit the ball it's CI. Period.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by yawetag

I think you meant back edge of the plate.

On pitch-outs, it seems on TV that the catcher frequently catches the pitch high and away BEFORE it completely crosses the plate. I have never seen CI called in that case. I said the leading edge of the plate with the thought that if a batter has not started a swing by then there is little chance he could get one off in the minuscule fraction of a second it would take for a pitch to traverse the plate. Since the PU mentally sets a plane at the leading edge of the plate (correct?) he would be better able to judge if F2 caught the pitch in front of that plane. I could well be wrong on this and I appreciate the perspective of experienced umpires on this site

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jicecone

When the rule book reads "unless Evans says differently" than I will start following what he has to say.

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.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If the catcher gets in the way of the bat it's CI.

The rule is 6.08(c) and there is nothing about the strike zone. The strike zone is explicitly not mentioned at all in the rule or the comments. What there is is:

The catcher or any fielder interferes with him.

If the catcher hinders the batter's ability to hit the ball it's CI. Period.

Rich, I entirely agree (for what it's worth coming from a non-umpire). But if the batter is not swinging, there is nothing to interfere with ONCE the pitch has reached a certain point. I have proposed that "point" to be the leading edge of the plate be it ball or strike.

[Larry1953]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/...55e4e719c2.jpg

This is a picture of a typical pitch-out. The ball is not in view, the batter has not started a swing and the catcher is in position to catch it before the pitch crosses the back edge plane of the plate

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If the catcher gets in the way of the bat it's CI.

The rule is 6.08(c) and there is nothing about the strike zone. The strike zone is explicitly not mentioned at all in the rule or the comments. What there is is:

The catcher or any fielder interferes with him.

If the catcher hinders the batter's ability to hit the ball it's CI. Period.

You call it that way in your games, coach. This is one of your more ridiculous posturings. I'm more likely to call malicious contact if the batter throws the bat at the catcher on a pitchout.