Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

jdmara

First of all, I'm not saying this is what happened in this play but it made me think of the situation.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | NYM@HOU: Turner interfered with, ump misses call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

R1 stealing on the pitch. Batter squares around to bunt. Catcher creeps up on the pitch (aka move closer to the batter to get an advantage on the throw). The batter decides to not bunt and legitimately pulls back his bat back. However, the catcher has crept so far up, the bat makes contact with his glove. At this point I don't think it matter what the continuing action is (Ie there is a pass ball, the catcher is unable to throw out the stealing R1, etc).

Do you have anything on this play? IMO, if the batter is doing what he is suppose to and the catcher is at fault for the contact. So I guess the only two options in my mind are catcher interference or play on. I would assume it needs to be called catcher interference even though the batter wasn't attempting to hit the pitched ball.

Any thoughts?

-Josh

mbyron

This can't be CI, as F2 did not interfere with the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

You could conceivably have batter interference, as the batter might have interfered with F2's opportunity to play on the runners. Since the runners didn't move up, however, there was no INT.

I think the PU called it a foul ball, which prevented the runners from moving up. If the pitch hit the bat, that's the right call. But it looked to me as if the bat hit the ball after it was already in F2's mitt.

Another option in OBR might be backswing or weak INT. Ball dead, runners return, no outs. That too might have been PU's call -- it would look the same as if he were calling it a foul ball, and yield the same result.

Tough call in real time.

MD Longhorn

My first thought, from your description and before seeing the play load up in my superslow browser, was that it sounded like catcher's interference (really Obstruction).

However - upon watching it - it actually appears the ball was IN the glove before the bat hit the glove. Not sure if that completely takes catcher off the hook - and also not sure PU could have discerned that - but if the pitch is over, we just have a fielder trying to make a throw...

In full motion, though, I believe I, as PU, would have ruled obstruction on the catcher.

jdmara

I knew I shouldn't have put that link. I'm speaking purely hypothetical:

Do you have anything on this play?

-Josh

MikeStrybel

jdmara wrote
...the catcher has crept so far up, the bat makes contact with his glove. Do you have anything on this play?

Yes Josh, you would have obstruction on the catcher. The batter doesn't have to commit to a bunt or full swing. (Yes, I know some small ball mandates this but I will presume a non-house rule here.) The catcher has to allow the batter to make an unimpeded swing at the ball though.

I have seen some well coached players execute this play and it is exasperating for the defensive coach.

UmpJM

MikeStrybel wrote
Yes Josh, you would have obstruction on the catcher. The batter doesn't have to commit to a bunt or full swing. (Yes, I know some small ball mandates this but I will presume a non-house rule here.) The catcher has to allow the batter to make an unimpeded swing at the ball though.

I have seen some well coached players execute this play and it is exasperating for the defensive coach.

Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

mbyron

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote
Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

JM

Interference and obstruction involve hindering a player's legitimate attempt to make a play. If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED).

JM, in FED presumably you'd have to call BI on this, since FED has no backswing INT rule.

Rich Ives

mbyron wrote
+1

Interference and obstruction involve hindering a player's legitimate attempt to make a play. If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)

Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

mbyron

Rich Ives wrote
Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

That's not what I said. Try another translation. 🙄

DG

FOUL, as it was called.

UmpJM

Rich Ives wrote
Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

Rich,

If the catcher steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has de jure interfered.

If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

DG wrote
FOUL, as it was called.

DG,

In the play in the video....

1. I am fairly certain the PU never saw that the bat and F2's mitt came into contact.

2. I can not tell for certain whether the ball and the bat ever came into contact.

3. If they did, I am fairly certain that the bat-mitt contact preceded the bat-ball contact.

4. Foul would only be the correct call if the bat-ball contact preceded the bat-mitt contact. (Maybe you saw it differently than I, and I saw it wrong. Like I said, I can't tell for sure from the video.)

5. Who (of the players) "screwed up" here?

6. Who should be held liable?

7. How?

Rich Ives

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote
Rich,

If the batter steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has de jure interfered.

If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

I KNOW I'm incorrect. I said it on purpose as I was responding to DG who posted:

"If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)."

to show him that the lack of an offer did not mean there was no interference.

MikeStrybel

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote
Mike,

Are you suggesting you would award the batter 1B in this sitch? That is, are you suggesting this would properly be ruled Catcher's Interference under OBR rules?

IMO, that's an insupportable ruling; the 6.06(c) Comment regarding backswing interference strikes me as the way to go. Time, runners return.

JM

Let's be clear, a takeaway is not a backswing. Contact with the bat prior to the batter being able to swing at the ball is an infraction on the catcher. In the play, the author wrote that the catcher crept up so far that contact would occur. That leads me to believe that we have obstruction.

A catcher may not interfere with a batter's attempt to swing at the ball. In NCAA we specifically have a mechanic for resetting on prior to the pitch contact. In Fed, we penalize those who make mistakes and are stupid. The catcher qualifies here.

J/R has a great summary of CI or OBS in Chapter 14, page 117 of the current issue. I see nothing in there that allows for a catcher to crowd a batter so much that his swing cannot be completed.

6.06c has to do with a batter interfering with a catcher's ability to field the ball. That is superseded by a batter having the opportunity to hit the ball prior. In the play, the batter does not do that but the catcher does. I award him first base and follow the guidelines of J/R. In the two times I have seen this play, once in collegiate and the other varsity baseball, neither defensive coach made a peep over the stupidity of their catcher.

UmpJM

Mike,

Did you watch the video clip?

MD Longhorn

DG wrote
FOUL, as it was called.

Neither the hypothetical nor the actual play posted has the ball contacting the bat ...

MikeStrybel

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote
Mike,

Did you watch the video clip?

JM

John,
I did. I specifically addressed his question in post #4 though. Backread and you will see that he asks a very specific question about squaring and then taking the bat back for a full swing while the catcher slides up. You will see that I have not confused the issue and am only responding to his request for a decision on that matter.

Enjoying this great summer weather? (I'm gald I moved back from paradise for the most snow in Chicago in years, the rainiest Spring in years and now the coldest start to June in half a century. Uggghhh.

UmpJM

Mike,

Read it again. He specifically asked about a batter pulling his bat back from a bunt because he decided not to offer.

If he "showed bunt" and then went to cock his bat to offer with a swing, I would agree that was CI.

MikeStrybel

As stated in post #5, he has CI or OBS, whatever you want to call it. The takeaway is part of the swing - the batter is being distracted from his opportunity to then take a full swing at the pitch. The catcher cannot impede it in any way or risk being called for the infraction. J/R substantiates this.

This specific action was also discussed at the Chicago NCAA meetings in January. Prior to the pitch, contact between the bat and catcher's mitt are to be dealt with as, "Time! Reset." On a pitch, you have CI. The catcher must avoid contacting the bat, not the batter must avoid contacting the mitt. The onus is on the defense.

MD Longhorn

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote
Mike,

Read it again. He specifically asked about a batter pulling his bat back from a bunt because he decided not to offer.

If he "showed bunt" and then went to cock his bat to offer with a swing, I would agree that was CI.

JM

Kind of curious how you're going to make this determination. If he hits the catcher on the way back, you're not going to see whether he was going to swing or not - he's already been disrupted.

(Granted, at the MLB or even NCAA level - the speeds are such that the difference is greater - pulling back doesn't give time to swing... but at HS or youth ball, the difference is going to be much harder to determine.)

UmpJM

MikeStrybel wrote
As stated in post #5, he has CI or OBS, whatever you want to call it. The takeaway is part of the swing - the batter is being distracted from his opportunity to then take a full swing at the pitch. ....

Mike,

As Josh clearly stated in Post #4 - the post to which you were replying - the batter had abandoned his effort to hit the ball.

By your logic, you would award the batter in the video clip 1B. I don't believe that's a correct call.

mbcrowder wrote
Kind of curious how you're going to make this determination. If he hits the catcher on the way back, you're not going to see whether he was going to swing or not - he's already been disrupted.

(Granted, at the MLB or even NCAA level - the speeds are such that the difference is greater - pulling back doesn't give time to swing... but at HS or youth ball, the difference is going to be much harder to determine.)

mbc,

It's pretty easy to determine in the video that the batter has no intention of offering at the pitch.