Catchers obstruction?????

[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.