No pitch or interference?

[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.

[mcrowder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[tcannizzo]

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)

[AtlUmpSteve]

The ASA Umpire manual states "Any time the contact is prior to the pitch, call DEAD BALL". That makes it a NO PITCH, you called a dead ball. Further, you could cite 6-10.B, no pitch when the batter is off balance (and you assert the contact put the batter off balance). But, I think that call has to be made almost immediately, and a retroactive "no pitch" call will always bring a disgreement from one or both teams.

Agreed that the pitch technically starts when one hand is taken off the ball. Depending on the pitcher's motion, that doesn't mean the NFHS start of any motion associated with the pitch, and the touch (and separation) may occur after motion has begun. For consistency in application, I would assert that if you can still stop the ball from being thrown, or get the "DEAD BALL" out even as the pitch is thrown, then that is the best resolution. You have a rule and a manual direction that support you, and the actual timing of the contact is so close to being before the pitch that it would be the best game management outcome. It is similar, in my mind, to a batter (legitimately) requesting time just as the pitcher starts her motion; if you can safely stop, that is better, and who's to argue (at least very long) against a statement that the batter requested it early enough, I just didn't pull the trigger fast enough?

In Rachel's case, where she says ball was being released at the time of contact, too late for a no pitch. It has to be CO or INT; and without a judgment of intent, it has to be CO. If intent is judged, or contact is so late that the pitch already is in the glove, then INT.

[mcrowder]

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]

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.

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]

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)