Steal of home (Video)
 

I saw the Texas Tech vs Texas game yesterday where the Tech batter scored on a straight steal of home.

Sit. R3 , 2 outs, 2 strikes on batter. Pitcher in windup, R3 off with first motion. As he nears plate B stays put (no swing), and catcher comes in front of plate to catch pitch. R3 slides in clearly safe. Question: 1. What if pitch were a strike (pitch in question appeared to be outside. 2. What if batter swings.?

Catcher's interference and a balk. Score the run, put the batter on 1st. Doesn't matter what the pitch would have been and it doesn't matter if the batter swings (unless he puts the ball in play).

So in this situation if you are HP and the catcher stays put you call ball/strike? But if he comes forward that's when you have CI?

Absolutely.

If the catcher comes forward, how can you call the pitch? It never reached the plate, and the ball has to do that to be ruled either a Ball or Strike.

And I hope the batter doesn't swing in this case, cuz he's liable to clock the catcher in the back!

What was the call in that game? Last year the possibility of calling CI existed in two college games and was no called. I think one was a steal of home and the other was the Vandy triple steal.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiCg...ature=youtu.be

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hiCgJpcHXdM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Umpire called runner safe and the pitch a ball.

Should have been a balk and award batter 1B for catcher's obstruction.

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

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.

Must be an "old school" thing. Years ago, when I first learned to umpire, I was taught by a Kinnaman School graduate, who said that without contact, you have nothing, so batters were taught to swing (gently, he hoped) and make contact with the catcher.

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

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.

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."

This NCAA umpire does if he sees it.

: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

How many times did you see it?

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.

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.

Because they were wrong.

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

Could you post the link?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Not that I know of, and since the specific rule (7.07) is that catching the ball in front of the plate (on a steal / squeeze) is a balk and CI, I don't think there is one.

I agree, but likely not for the same reason.

A steal of home to tie up a rivalry game in the ninth generates great excitement, and I'll bet you a buck the NCAA facilitators will focus not on the missed call, but will instead reinforce the need for umpires to keep the players on the bench/warning track during live ball action.

I like how the ball boy ignored the celebration and just took care of his business of getting the plate umpire's supply replenished.

From my 2014 NCAA rules test. Not exactly the same play as a straight steal, but still indicative of what the proper call is by rule. Correct answer is 'b'.

R2, R3. Squeeze play. The catcher steps in front of home plate to receive the pitch from F1 before the batter has an opportunity to bunt the ball. R2 was not stealing on the play.

a. None of the above. The ball remains in play.

b. Time is called as soon as the catcher steps in front of the plate prior to the batter having an opportunity to bunt the ball. The pitcher is charged with a balk. Score R3, award the batter first base and award R2 third base.

c. R3 gets home and the batter is awarded first on the catcher's interference. R2 is returned to second base since he was not attempting to steal 3rd.

d. R3 scores, The batter is awarded first base on the catcher's interference. There is no "balk" charged to the pitcher. R2 stays at 2nd base.