Catcher’s Limits

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.

You are correct that CO "could" be ruled in this case. However, it does not say "should" be ruled. There is still an element missing, the batter swinging or attempting a swing. Without that element, you cannot have CO, any more than you can have OBS between two bases simply because the fielder is standing, without possession of the ball, in the basepath of the runner. This action by the fielder must cause the runner to do something, such as alter their path, that they wouldn't have done had the fielder not been there.

[Steve M]

"In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.
__________________
Tony Cannizzo
ASA/NFHS "

Tony, That's just plain wrong. Think about what you need for obstruction of a runner - the defense positioned in the way AND a runner that is affected by this positioning. Why would you need or want less in this case? A catcher's being in a certain place may expose them to a CO call, but just being there does not meet requirements - the batter's swing has to have been obstructed.

[tcannizzo]

Steve M.

I can appreciate that you don't agree with the rule. But I didn't write the rules. I just try to enforce them. I am going to give the authors of the rule some benefit of the doubt that these words didn't just accidentally creep into the book.

What if the catcher's feet were just an inch short of the point on home plate and the catcher's reach put the mitt out in front of the plate?

What if the catcher wasn't quite that far up, but prevented the pitch from striking the plate by reaching for it, where if she didn't catch it, it would have hit the plate?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Steve M.

I can appreciate that you don't agree with the rule. But I didn't write the rules. I just try to enforce them. I am going to give the authors of the rule some benefit of the doubt that these words didn't just accidentally creep into the book.

What if the catcher's feet were just an inch short of the point on home plate and the catcher's reach put the mitt out in front of the plate?

What if the catcher wasn't quite that far up, but prevented the pitch from striking the plate by reaching for it, where if she didn't catch it, it would have hit the plate?

Tony, I believe you are misenforcing this rule. This rule allows you to call CO if the catcher is so far forward (over or in front of the plate) that he OBSTRUCTS the batter (with or without a swing). If the batter was merely taking the pitch - the batter was not obstructed from doing what they were going to do. The rule you quote does not mean that EVERY time the catcher leans out partially over the plate to catch the ball, it's OBS. It means that if the catcher does this AND OBSTRUCTS, it is OBS.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Tony, I believe you are misenforcing this rule. This rule allows you to call CO if the catcher is so far forward (over or in front of the plate) that he OBSTRUCTS the batter (with or without a swing). If the batter was merely taking the pitch - the batter was not obstructed from doing what they were going to do. The rule you quote does not mean that EVERY time the catcher leans out partially over the plate to catch the ball, it's OBS. It means that if the catcher does this AND OBSTRUCTS, it is OBS.

Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?

[debeau]

If the catcher reaches over and catches the ball before it goes over the plate of course we have CO .
We cant have a strike because it never went in the strike zone .
If the batter swung and the catcher caught it before the batter had a chance to hit it then we have CO but you have to have good eyes .
If the catcher catches the ball in the strike zone waist high with no swing you have to call a strike .

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Would you call a strike if the catcher caught the ball before it crossed the plate?

Tony, perhaps you are not understanding what is being said here. I'll try one more time...

The POE you keep relying on is NOT a rule. It is a POE. It is there to help interpret the rule. The conditions of the rule that it is elaborating on must still be met, namely, that the batter's attempt to hit the pitch was obstructed.

In particular, the final sentence you keep quoting has two other aspects to it that will help in properly applying it. The first I have already pointed out: it says "could be" not "shall be" or "is." "Could be" if the other parts are there, namely, that the batter's attempt at the pitch was obstructed.

The other aspect to that sentence that will help is the opening parenthetical where it tells you when it applies: "(Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch where stealing is allowed)" IOW, the POE is telling you that if, in your judgment, the catcher reached in to grab the pitch before the batter could hit it when something like a hit and run or squeeze play was on, then CO could be ruled.

Merely having the mitt over the plate is not, in and of itself, CO. The "obstruction" part must still be there.