Catchers obstruction?????

[PABlue]

I researched everything I could find going through the old threads and could find nothing that helped me in this situation.

Fed baseball: Pitch to the batter with runner stealing from first. Catcher reaches out, never leaving the catchers box, and receives the pitch over the middle of home plate. Batter does not attempt to swing,I have a strike call, throw goes to second with a safe call given on the steal.

My question is this,do we need a swing or a attempt to hit the pitch for obstruction to be called on the catcher? Should some other call be made that I am not thinking of? Is this nothing?

I spent over a hour last night going through my rule and case book and could not find anything specific. I'm thinking that means I was right in not calling anything except the pitch,or that I'm a very bad researcher.

[bob jenkins]

By a strict interpretation of the case book (8.1.1F), you could have had CO. But, you were right in just calling the pitch.

[PABlue]

Thanks Bob! I missed that last night waiting for my daughter to leave her play practice. I'm glad I didn't make that call as the game was 0-0 and the batter was taking the pitch the whole way.

[Rich Ives]

I think if F2 stepped toward the mound to reach over the plate it should have been called. It would be hard to reach over the plate without moving toward it.

You got lucky. A late swing could break the catcher's arm. Don't let them reach into the swing zone.

[jicecone]

I agree with Bob however be very carefull in the application of this.

Eg: R3 trying to steal on a squeaze to HP. Sometimes the catcher will cheat so bad that the batter doesn't get a chance to execute a swing or bunt. Most of the time it is obvious but if you get a sharp coach that has a better view then you of exactly where that catcher is receiving the pitch, you coud end up with a discussion.

Remember, if called obstruction that team could end up with runners at first and second instead of just second. Or runners at first and second instead of nobody on, as a result of the throw out at second. So it is a fine line. Be carful.

[PABlue]

Rich, the catcher never left his crouch to receive the ball,he leaned forward and stretched his arm out and caught the ball with his glove over the middle of the plate. This catcher set up very close to the batter on every pitch, he has been taught to set up where he can reach out and touch the batter from his crouch. If the batter had made ANY attempt at the pitch I would have had the obstruction. I just couldn't remember if I should make the call without a attempt at the pitch. After reading the case play I'm still not sure if I should have made the call. 8-1-1-f says it is obstruction and I will agree with that just wondering with no attempt by the batter if this would be one of those grabbing the smelly end of the stick calls?

[MD Longhorn]

If you have a batter clearly taking, don't pick this nit. If your batter reacts AT ALL, I would call it.

[RPatrino]

As was earlier posted, I would not call this unless the batter made some attempt to swing. I don't think we can really call a "potential" obstruction call or at least defend the call if questioned. It would cure the catcher of crowding the plate though, but can we really tell him not to do that, if he has been coached to do so? CO is a risk they are taking.

[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.