Catchers obstruction?????

[bob jenkins]

A saying I've heard on both baseball and basketball is "don't be a plumber." Sometimes you just need to umpire. That will tell you when to get it.

[Rich Ives]

Problem is that there are a couple of folks on another board that insist it absolutely cannot be CI/CO unless the batter swings - no matter what the catcher does.

Having people here say they wouldn't call it without a swing doesn't help in the long run.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Problem is that there are a couple of folks on another board that insist it absolutely cannot be CI/CO unless the batter swings - no matter what the catcher does.

Having people here say they wouldn't call it without a swing doesn't help in the long run.

It's not black or white, Rich, as I'm sure you know. If the batter makes no attempt to offer at the pitch, and the umpire can judge that the catcher's position had nothing to do with why the batter didn't offer because the batter couldn't possibly see him (which sounds like what happened here), then there really is no CI/CO. But if the umpire judges that the reason the batter didn't offer was because the batter saw where the catcher was located (such as right on top or in front of home plate), then CI/CO could be ruled.

Even then, I've seen batters completely bail out of the box before the pitch arrives, such as on a steal of home. If the catcher moves up to catch the pitch, I couldn't justify a CI/CO call then, since it was clear the batter had no intent to contact the pitch.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not black or white, Rich, as I'm sure you know. If the batter makes no attempt to offer at the pitch, and the umpire can judge that the catcher's position had nothing to do with why the batter didn't offer because the batter couldn't possibly see him (which sounds like what happened here), then there really is no CI/CO. But if the umpire judges that the reason the batter didn't offer was because the batter saw where the catcher was located (such as right on top or in front of home plate), then CI/CO could be ruled.

Even then, I've seen batters completely bail out of the box before the pitch arrives, such as on a steal of home. If the catcher moves up to catch the pitch, I couldn't justify a CI/CO call then, since it was clear the batter had no intent to contact the pitch.

What were talking about is not whether it is CI/CO, rather, are we going to call it or not. I am not disagreeing about some of the suggestions about when we should or should not call it however, one only has to come up against a coach that is smart enough to question why his batter isn't on first, one time, and you may think about this a little more closely.

JMO

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not black or white, Rich, as I'm sure you know. If the batter makes no attempt to offer at the pitch, and the umpire can judge that the catcher's position had nothing to do with why the batter didn't offer because the batter couldn't possibly see him (which sounds like what happened here), then there really is no CI/CO. But if the umpire judges that the reason the batter didn't offer was because the batter saw where the catcher was located (such as right on top or in front of home plate), then CI/CO could be ruled.

Even then, I've seen batters completely bail out of the box before the pitch arrives, such as on a steal of home. If the catcher moves up to catch the pitch, I couldn't justify a CI/CO call then, since it was clear the batter had no intent to contact the pitch.

Manny et. al. - one more time - the problem is that there are people that think there is never CI unless the batter swings. Once you say it's judgement then you legitimize their position because they can now say their judgement is that a non-swing means it couldn't be CI.


There was a play in MLB within the last year or two where on a pitchout a catcher jumped forward and out into the opposite batter's box, placing himself even with the batter, and got called for it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

MD said: "If you have a batter clearly taking, don't pick this nit."

Originally Posted by Rich

batter doesn't swing because he's there

These are two COMPLETELY different things.

If the batter is clearly taking the pitch, then the catcher didn't obstruct anything. If not, and there's ANY indication that the batter didn't swing because the catcher was there, it's obstruction. This is fairly easy to delineate - as the batter is not generally looking at the catcher, and only picks him up in his peripheral vision at the last possible instant. The batter's entire body changes when he's thinking about swinging, and anyone who's been around the game and paid any attention at all can see that.

[ozzy6900]

So let's say F2 jumps out and "steals" the pitch at or in front of the plate to catch R3 coming in. The batter doesn't swing so as not to take F2's head off. None of you would call it because the batter didn't swing?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

None

I don't think that's what's been said at all. Rich is saying that "some on another site" believe this.

In your specific example, I'd get it. In the OP, I probably wouldn't.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

So let's say F2 jumps out and "steals" the pitch at or in front of the plate to catch R3 coming in. The batter doesn't swing so as not to take F2's head off. None of you would call it because the batter didn't swing?

I would absolutely call that.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

There was a play in MLB within the last year or two where on a pitchout a catcher jumped forward and out into the opposite batter's box, placing himself even with the batter, and got called for it.

That's a big leap (pun intended) from the OP where F2 reaches out from his crouch.

In your example, F2 got closer to 2nd base, and thus gained an advantage. That's why he got busted.

[DG]

If batter hits the catcher's mitt while swinging you have a call to make. If the batter does not swing because the catcher is in his way you have a call tp make. Neither happened in the post.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Manny et. al. - one more time - the problem is that there are people that think there is never CI unless the batter swings. Once you say it's judgement then you legitimize their position because they can now say their judgement is that a non-swing means it couldn't be CI.

But Rich, it IS judgment that an umpire uses to decide if there was obstruction or not.

What you're pointing out is simply a misinterpretation of the term "judgment" as it applies here. An umpire who says, "It's my judgment that a non-swing means there wasn't CI/CO" doesn't understand the rule.

It would be like saying, "It's my judgment that a batter who squares and doesn't pull the bat back on a bunt attempt is offering at the pitch." We know that's not the sole criterion to determine if the batter truly attempts to bunt the ball (in baseball anyway; softball is another sad story). It's just a matter of educating those umpires when the batter does offer and when he doesn't.

That's similar here. When the catcher places his mitt on or in front of the plate to catch a pitch and the batter doesn't swing, that doesn't automatically negate that there wasn't CI/CO. We have to use common sense and judgment to decide if the batter didn't swing because he wasn't planning to in the first place, or because he saw that the catcher was preventing him from doing so. If the catcher is so far in front of the plate, that's an easy CI/CO call. In the OP, it's not automatic at all.