Originally Posted by charliej47 (Post 930234)

:DWhen I did collage I called it every time it happened. A coarch wanted to protest but his assistant calmed him down and said that I got the call right! Imagine that!:o

Originally Posted by Matt (Post 930213)

This NCAA umpire does if he sees it.

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 930241)

Why wasn't it called in the OP or the previous years sits? Is it because it happens so quick that the safe call prevents further rumination on what actually happened? Did the lack of a swing not give the ump a hook to hang his hat on. The previous years occurrence had a big dog defending no call.

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 930241)

Would you cite where you goy the NCAA interp?

Originally Posted by Matt (Post 930242)

Because they were wrong.



It's on the central hub in one of the interpretation meetings.

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 930207)

Here's the rule. I bolded parts that you can use to call or not call the CI:

"e. If any defensive player interferes with the batter’s swing or prevents the
individual from striking at a pitched ball;

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 930207)

A.R.—Catcher’s interference on a batter should be called only on the batter’s actual swing to hit the pitch. If a batter, during preliminary loosening-up swings, hits the catcher or the catcher’s mitt during the backswing, the umpire immediately should call time, and not interference. The pitch or swing should not be allowed since the batter’s concentration or rhythm could be affected.

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 930284)

I don't see how anyone could argue that a catcher moving onto or in front of the plate does not prevent the batter from striking at a pitched ball. Do you really need the batter to physically swing the bat to make that determination?



What you highlighted should be taken into context only with the complete A.R., not as a universal statement. It's basically instructing umpires that not all types of contact between the batter's bat and the catcher/mitt are CI. That doesn't mean that the only way to call CI is to have the batter actually swing and be prevented from hitting the ball.

If the catcher grabs the bat while it's still in the batter's prep position, and the batter looks back at the catcher with a "WTF?" expression on his face as the pitch comes in, please tell us you'll make the CI call, even though there was no swing attempt.

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 930287)

I agree with a CI call. I'm just trying see if there is some justification why some NCAA big dogs don't call it.

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 930298)

Truthfully, this is probably something that caught the umpire by total surprise, and it didn't dawn on him that he should have awarded the batter first base.

How often do you actually see someone try a straight steal of home, much less be successful? And then throw on top of that the fact that the catcher moved forward, caught the pitch, and still failed to tag the runner in time? And the whole time, the batter just stood there making zero attempt to protect the runner.

It wouldn't surprise me if the plate umpire knew of the correct interp, but he just failed to make the right call because this once-in-a-lifetime occurrence caused a brain cramp.

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 930308)

Is there a MLBUM, PBUC or BRD case that says that, under OBR, a swing/attempted swing/contact is required for a balk/CI call?

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 930169)

For sure that will be one of the videos presented at next year's NCAA pre-season clinics.