Catchers obstruction?????

[Manny A]

Just to add, you wouldn't call obstruction on a fielder for being in the baseline waiting for a throw to come in when a runner isn't running toward him. You have to have a noticeable hindrance for obstruction to take place.

[Rich Ives]

The difference with the batter and catcher versus a runner and fielder is that the batter is concentrating on the pitch and cannot even see the catcher. No awareness is required or desirable.

There is also NO obligation on the part of the batter to avoid the catcher prior to the pitch passing, but there is an obligation on the part of the catcher to not interfere/obstruct the batter's ability to hit the ball if he chooses to attempt to do so.

The catcher lucked out - he didn't take a swing on his hand/arm. The positioning I learned at coaching clinics was to be able to touch the batter while upright on the knees, then rock back into the crouch. A touch from the crouch gets you too close.

[Rich Ives]

Manny, MD, & RPatrino: So if the catcher leaps in front of the plate and the batter doesn't swing because he's there it's not CI because there wasn't a swing?

[PABlue]

Now that scenario I would call the obstruction no problem.

[RPatrino]

I don't think that was the situation posed in the OP. The catcher just reaching into the strike zone and over the plate to receive the ball is a lot different then if he stands up and moves his body over and through the plate area. I would have no problem calling CO in the later case and wouldn't in the former.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Manny, MD, & RPatrino: So if the catcher leaps in front of the plate and the batter doesn't swing because he's there it's not CI because there wasn't a swing?

Why do you like to put words in people's mouths? No one said that.

[Rich Ives]

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

RPatrino said: "I would not call this unless the batter made some attempt to swing."

So somewhere there's a demarcation point?

So what it boils down to is that I Just want people to think about how far into the strike zone or beyond the catcher has to move before you'll call it CI/CO.

[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.

[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.