Catcher’s Limits

[Dakota]

POEs apply where they apply. As I said way back at the beginning, my issue with what you did was not that you warned the catcher per se, but that you told the catcher that you would call something as CO that was not CO.

CO has a meaning - as we have pointed out several times in this thread - the thing being "obstructed" is the batter's opportunity to hit the ball. It has nothing to do with where the catcher's mitt is unless the catcher is obstructing the batter.

The POE on catcher's obstruction assumes that there has been an infraction of CO, and it explains the interpretations of that infraction. You cannot apply the part about the mitt being over the plate unless by doing so, the catcher is obstructing the batter. Merely being over the plate is not, by itself, and infraction.

[tcannizzo]

Fair enough.

So, if the catcher touched the ball prior to crossing the plate. How rule ye? and Why?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Fair enough.

So, if the catcher touched the ball prior to crossing the plate. How rule ye? and Why?

Depends...

If the catcher obstructed the batter's opportunity to hit the ball (e.g. it did not reach the batter), then that would be CO. The reason for hedging on this is if the batter is well up in the box, so the pitch has passed the batter before the catcher touches it, then I would just have a "ball".

I've actually had young & inexperienced catchers reach up beside or ahead of the batter for an errant pitch (trying to catch a low pitch before it hits the ground, for example). If the batter shows clearly that she is not swinging (e.g. she has bailed), this, also, is just a ball (possibly with a warning to the catcher for safety reasons).

[Skahtboi]

Phew.......