Steal of home (Video)

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I doubt it. Last years sits were left alone. I think when the runner is safe the NCAA guys leave it alone. Last years calls were argued on another site and since the batter wasn't swinging some big dogs argued against calling CI.

They're wrong. NCAA interpretation says this is a balk and CI.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Matt

They're wrong. NCAA interpretation says this is a balk and CI.

NCAA umpires are not calling it.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by umpjim

NCAA umpires are not calling it.

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;
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.
(1) If a play follows the interference, the offensive team may elect to ignore
the interference and accept the play. However, if the batter reaches first
base and all other runners advance at least one base, the interference is
ignored.
(2) Any runner attempting to steal on a catcher’s interference with the
batter’s swing shall be awarded the base the runner is attempting to reach
If a runner is not attempting to steal on the catcher’s interference, the
individual is not entitled to the next base, if not forced to advance because
of the batter being awarded first base.
Exception—If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play, the batter
is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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;
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.
(1) If a play follows the interference, the offensive team may elect to ignore
the interference and accept the play. However, if the batter reaches first
base and all other runners advance at least one base, the interference is
ignored.
(2) Any runner attempting to steal on a catcher’s interference with the
batter’s swing shall be awarded the base the runner is attempting to reach
If a runner is not attempting to steal on the catcher’s interference, the
individual is not entitled to the next base, if not forced to advance because
of the batter being awarded first base.
Exception—If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play, the batter
is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference.

Here's the interpretation that says definitively what to call here, from the NCAA:

"Catcher stepping on or in front of home plate to receive a pitch in his attempt to put out a runner stealing home before the batter has an opportunity to swing.
a. Treat as catcher’s interference. A balk is charged to the pitcher, the ball is dead, the run is scored and the batter is awarded first base on the interference."

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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;

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?

Originally Posted by umpjim

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.

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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. I guess they haven't seen Matt's NCAA interp. On a previous discussion on another site there was arguement that no swing would be no CI.

[bob jenkins]

There's lots of stuff in those old interps that I (for one) had forgot. I happened to go through many of them a week or so ago, looking for something else.

I should probably go through all of them again.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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.

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

Caught these guys by surprise also:

Video: Triple Steal, Part II - Vanderbilt Official Athletic Site

And this link: OSU/OU - stealing home (video) - Collegiate - Umpire-Empire
is a thread about an OSU-OU game where it was not called. I don't think the video link works now but the thread has a still of the CI. Anyway, many argue not to call it and it wasn't called in these games and the OP. Whether by surprise or design I don't know.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

NCAA umpires are not calling it.

This NCAA umpire does if he sees it.

[charliej47]

When 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!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by charliej47

When 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!

How many times did you see it?

[charliej47]

I did mostly junior colleges and I saw it I think a total of 3 times.

In umpiring for 50+ years, I would say I saw it more more than 7 or 8 time at HS and up, but maybe 25 times in JR HS and below.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Matt

This NCAA umpire does if he sees it.

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.
Would you cite where you goy the NCAA interp?
BTW, I agree I would call CI in reviewing the video. But I have had a steal of home with a wild pitch that hit me and the catcher was definitely in front of the plate trying to catch it. No swing by the batter. No call except safe and ball. It's an interesting situation that you can know the rule but when it happens you rule differently.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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.

Because they were wrong.

Originally Posted by umpjim

Would you cite where you goy the NCAA interp?

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