Catcher’s Limits

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is a stronger situation that the one we have been discussing. We've been discussing a catcher who places her mitt over the plate, not one who reaches in front of it.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

Tom, I asked a Yes/No question. I'll try one more time...

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Tom, I asked a Yes/No question. I'll try one more time...

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

This gets interesting, wrt CO, if the batter is near the front of the box, say on a drag bunt or a slap, and F2 moved forward as well. If F2 remains behind the batter, not obstructing the batter's attempt at the pitch, but catches the pitch before it crosses the plate, that is not CO. But what is it? Probably a ball. If you mean F2 is ahead of both the plate and the batter, the that would be CO, since the batter must be given the opportunity to hit the ball.

Maybe you have been visualizing something different from me in this discussion. I've been visualizing the catcher still behind the batter, reaching over the plate. The batter is doing what the batter does, without regard to the catcher. That is not CO merely because the catcher has moved her mitt over the plate.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Maybe you have been visualizing something different from me in this discussion. I've been visualizing the catcher still behind the batter, reaching over the plate. The batter is doing what the batter does, without regard to the catcher. That is not CO merely because the catcher has moved her mitt over the plate.

My visualization was from a game situation I had just this past week:
The batter was up in the box,
The catcher's feet were forward of the back corners of the batter's boxes,
When the catcher had set up her target, her mitt was over the plate,
I held up the pitch, instructed her to move back, which she did without incident,

My comment was that she could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.

Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)

The last few posts are into the "what-if" scenarios which bring the rule into play. Different scenarios have different visualizations.

[Antonella]

Some thoughts from me:
1. no REASONABLE illegal pitch on a situation like the OP
2. better to say to the catcher 'please go back'
3. it is good to say that to the catcher even if experienced and/or in high level game
4. AGREE with tcannizzo: if a pitched ball cannot cross homeplate I have a 'ball'

All this said... I still have problems with this:

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate. Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)

Maybe due to language problem, maybe I loose something... please explain it again. What I understand is that there is a POE (that is NOT on my Rulebook) stating CO could be call.
What I understand is... CO could be called IF a REAL obstruction occurs.
What am I missing here?


Grazie

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Antonella

Maybe due to language problem, maybe I loose something... please explain it again. What I understand is that there is a POE (that is NOT on my Rulebook) stating CO could be call.
What I understand is... CO could be called IF a REAL obstruction occurs.
What am I missing here?

Grazie

Originally Posted by tcannizzo
Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)
{TC} POE 8... The umpire's request for the catcher to move farther away from the batter ot avoid injury or obstruction should always be obeyed. This would prevent the following to occur.


(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.
{TC} This was my "editorial comment" about the reasoning for why the catcher must stay within the confines of the catcher's box. Clearly the wording on the CO is weaker than the requirement for the catcher to obey the umpire in moving back.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, [U]have not acknowledged it)

Of maybe some just believe that your view is a matter of being over-officious.

(the catcher) could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.

That's not true. CO can be called ONLY if the catcher's action(s) hindered or impeded the batter from hitting the ball. The location of that ball is irrelevant.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

My visualization was from a game situation I had just this past week:
The batter was up in the box,
The catcher's feet were forward of the back corners of the batter's boxes,
When the catcher had set up her target, her mitt was over the plate,
I held up the pitch, instructed her to move back, which she did without incident,

In my view, given the highlighted part, you had no justification for instructing the catcher to move back. This cather's position is legal in ASA. She is at risk of CO if the batter moves back, but that is her business, not yours.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

My comment was that she could get a CO if she touched the ball before it finished crossing the plate.

And, I completely disagree with this statement. You have not provided any justification for this statement.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Earlier in the thread, there was a dispute about the existance of any rule that would justify the PU moving a catcher back. We established that there is such a rule, (although those who challenged the existence of the rule, have not acknowledged it.)

No, "we" did not. You are relying on a POE (not a rule), where the underlying conditions of the rule which the POE pertains to have not happened.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

The last few posts are into the "what-if" scenarios which bring the rule into play. Different scenarios have different visualizations.

I was attempting to figure out how you could be taking the stand you are taking. Can you get away with what you did (asking the F2 to move back)? Of course. Did you have sufficient justification in the situation you have described above, according to the rules, to ask the F2 to move back? No, not in my view. This is compounded by the fact that what you have stated to be CO is, in fact, not CO.

Could you have gotten away with calling having the mitt over the plate (not in front of the plate) when the batter IS in front of the plate as CO? Maybe, but you probably would have gotten the opportunity to explain your call to a knowledgable coach, especially if you did this as you threatened the catcher you would - with a belt high take. Heck, this is not even keeping the ball from entering the strike zone, since by definition the ball is already in the strike zone when caught by the catcher.