No pitch or interference?

Rachel · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 09:38am

R1 on 1st stealing on the pitch.

Batter shows bunt and then pulls the bat back making contact with the catchers glove as the ball is being released.

What cues do we have to determine this difference?

I called no pitch on this play but on second thought could have called batter interference.

mcrowder · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 10:06am

Let me answer it by asking a question:

What rule did batter break?

(Edited to ask

Also - by what rule did you go with "no pitch"?

Rachel · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 10:43am

She made contact with the catchers glove on the backswing and prevented the catcher from making a play on the runner. Sounds like interference to me.

Lower level U14. Batter bringing the bat back accidental contact.
Could be no pitch.

In a higher level of play I would suspect this was coached. What do you think?

mcrowder · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 10:55am

Let's assume it wasn't coached, or at least that you did not rule intent. I ask again.

By what RULE (quote it) do you rule batter's interference on this play, and by what RULE (quote it) do you rule No Pitch?

whiskers_ump · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 11:22am

Quote:

Originally posted by Rachel
R1 on 1st stealing on the pitch.

Batter shows bunt and then pulls the bat back making contact with the catchers glove as the ball is being released.

What cues do we have to determine this difference?

I called no pitch on this play but on second thought could have called batter interference.

Rachel,

I don't see anyway you could have a "no pitch". You stated ball was being
released as contact was made. So pitch was started.

However, not sure you would have interference going by POE 36 NOTE:
Batter must be given opportunity to hit the ball. (In you case had that opportunity was there.)

Should batter delay swing, and clearly the attempt is no longer to hit the ball but to
interfere with the catcher's throw on a steal attempt, then the batter's interference
would be the ruling...You could have called interference, if it was you judgement that
that was batter's intent, to interfere. Does not sound like it was, but you were the
one there.

chuck chopper · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 11:26am

This also sounds like the catcher came forward over the plate while the batter was withdrawing a squared bunt position. Unintentional interference at best.

IRISHMAFIA · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 11:36am

As offered, this is catcher's obstruction. The batter owns the pitch, not the catcher, until the ball reaches the catcher's mitt while in the catcher's box.

Just because a batter shows bunt does not commit him/her to a bunt. The batter is free to attempt to bat the ball in any manner while it is in flight and s/he remains in the batter's box.

Dakota · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 11:48am

The main obligation is on the catcher to avoid contact with the bat or batter. ASA 8-1-D

For batter's interference, ASA 7-6-P-2 requires intent in this situation. Given the situation (steal, probably a fake bunt to "legally" block the catcher's view and draw in the infield), it wouldn't take a lot for me to consider pulling the bat back into the catcher to be intentional.

However, you mentioned lower level 14U. The catcher was probably anticipating the steal attempt and trying to reach a bit to catch the pitch early. The batter was probably just clumsily executing a fake bunt. I see nothing wrong with a "no pitch" to have everyone reset. Call it "lower level game management."

Rachel · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 11:59am

What's to stop the batter from pulling back into the catchers' glove on all steals then? This is why I asked the question.

The start of the pitch is when the hands separate. So is that the point in whitch we cannot have accidental contact with the catchers' glove on the backswing?

chuck chopper · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 12:06pm

If the batter & the catcher are tangled up before the pitch starts, and then the pitcher starts or even delivers..I think it is perfectly correct to call a no pitch.

mcrowder · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 12:41pm

I was trying to get her there on her own... but the relevant rules have been mentioned. This can't be ANYthing on the batter unless you rule intent. Barring intent, this is obstruction on the catcher.

Chuck - the pitch starts when the hands separate. I agree that if all this fake-bunt-pull-back-hit-glove stuff happened before the hands even separated, you have no pitch... but that's not how it happened in the post.

The catcher has 100% responsibility for avoiding the bat here. To avoid contacting the bat is simple --- you can't move up into the batter's way until after the ball has passed. Catcher is moving up too quickly here - and has obstructed the batter's chance to hit the ball.

Dakota · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rachel
What's to stop the batter from pulling back into the catchers' glove on all steals then? This is why I asked the question.

Only your judgment of intent. Benefit of the doubt goes to the offense and catcher's obstructing in the ruling. Many lower level catchers will try to reach for the ball. She needs to learn she can't do that.

If you judge the pull back to be intentional (such clues as an "unnatural" pull back straight into the catcher's face rather than a "natural" pull back up toward the shoulder, etc.), then batter's interference. JMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rachel
The start of the pitch is when the hands separate. So is that the point in whitch we cannot have accidental contact with the catchers' glove on the backswing?

That's the way I see it, except, as I said, with a decidedly lower level game, I can see the game management benefit of stopping the pitch and resetting.

Rachel · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 01:34pm

The catcher did not reach for the ball. The bat went back into the catchers' glove as the ball was being released.

The catcher did not catch the ball. (it was in the strike zone)

mcrowder · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 20, 2005, 01:56pm

Rachel - are you trying to say that the batter leaned forward to bunt, and brought the bat back --- all the way back to a catcher who was behind the plate, and low enough to hit the glove?

If so --- it would seem such an action was visually obviously intentional. She's almost have to look for the glove to get back far enough to hit a catcher's glove if the catcher was set up in the normal spot.

However, that said --- if it was not OBVIOUSLY intentional, then this is Catcher Obstruction. It is the catcher's sole responsibility to avoid contact here unless the batter caused the contact INTENTIONALLY.

tcannizzo · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 22, 2006, 08:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

If the batter & the catcher are tangled up before the pitch starts, and then the pitcher starts or even delivers..I think it is perfectly correct to call a no pitch.

Nice upgrade to the forum. Especially a SEARCH function that works!

Had a similar sitch this weekend - 18Gold.

Pitcher starts delivery, Batter pulls back to get set, Bat contacts catcher's mitt.

Can't find a rule that covers NO PITCH. When you see it happen it "looks" like INT, but there is no rule that covers that either.

If you do call NO PITCH...what rule do you cite? (ASA)