Catcher’s Limits
 

Here is a strange question a young umpire asked yesterday…
“What I am supposed to do if catcher stays very close to the plate, well over the rear line of batter’s box?”

My answer: “Handle this as a safety issue if you are umpiring a youth game or a real inexperienced catcher: tell her to move back to avoid an accident; otherwise just focus on the pitch and keep both eyes on possible obstruction”.
Another umpire’s answer: “Ok: handle this as a safety issue is correct most of the times. But do not forget what Rulebook says: catcher is not allowed to stay out of the catcher’s box until the ball is released by the pitcher. If a violation occurs you can call an illegal pitch”.

From this point on the discussion was between me and the other umpire: my point “there is no line (no limit) IN FRONT of the catcher and what Rulebook says is referred to lateral and rear lines of the catcher’s box – even if I was submit to torture I never call an horrible illegal pitch like that!”

The other umpire point: “There is no white line on the ground… but the Rulebook settle a front limit, too. Read it carefully and you will notice it.”

I get my ISF Rulebook (but I can imagine ASA Rulebook is quite the same about this!) and I read:

Rule 1 - Sec. 16. CATCHER'S BOX
The catcher's box is that area within which the catcher must remain until
a. (FP ONLY) The pitch is released. The lines are to be considered within the catcher's box.

Rule 2 - Sec. 4 (…)
d. THE CATCHER'S BOX shall be 3.05m (10 ft) in length from the rear outside corners of the batters' boxes and shall be 2.57m (8 ft 5 in) wide.

I never heard about an illegal pitch called because of this kind of violation, neither I saw an umpire says to a catcher “You MUST move back, you know… because of the Rulebook”.
:eek:
BTW I would like to know different point of view about all this.

I appreciate any suggestion, help, advice, etc.

Grazie

An IP is not justified by any rule of which I am aware for the catcher being out of the box prior to the pitch since a pitch is not allowed to begin until all players are in position, including the catcher in the box.

ISF 6(FP).1.B states that the catcher must be in the CB as a preliminary event to the pitcher even being considered in position to begin the pitch. If the catcher is not in the box, there can be no pitch. However, the pitcher is still held to the time limit and if she doesn't deliver the ball within that time frame, the umpire shall award the batter a ball. (7.5.H)

That is a long way from an IP which would also award a base to each runner.

The wording is suspect, but the "rear" outside corners of the batter's box would indicate that the front of the catcher's box is the rear of the batter's box. Not sure about ISF, but ASA allows the catcher to move up, possibly out of the box, if the batter is standing toward the front of the batter's box. The catcher does this at the peril of committing catcher's obstruction should the batter decide to move to the back of the box to hit the pitch

I always do this with my hand held up for note allowing the pitch. However, it is usually done so quietly and calmly that others probably won't notice. "Come on catcher, you know you've got to stay behind the batter boxes."

If the batter is 'deep' in the box and the catcher is up close, with both legal, I will usually say, "Wow catcher, you sure are getting close. Remember that if you touch her bat while she is swinging, that's catcher obstruction." They usually take an extra step back.

Had a similar situation recently.

I told the catcher that if her mitt was over any part of home plate that she would be obstructing the strike zone. I would have Catcher's OBS, even if the batter took a pitch belt-high down the middle.

It was effective in moving the catcher back.

It may have been effective, but your rule justification would be slim indeed.

Dear friends...
I am sure each and all of us umpires would DO something if a catcher is too "far" towards the plate...
But this issue is NOT about preventive umpiring...
It is about a Rule that (according to me... and someone else here) DOES NOT exist.

Ciao e grazie per le vostre risposte!

Speaking ASA (only).

Leaving out the real young and inexperienced kids (and the safety issues involved), F2 is allowed to move up toward the plate ahead of the rear of the batter's box if the batter has moved up in the batter's box. While allowed, this does not relieve F2 from the jeopardy of CO, but it does make it legal.

If F2 is not properly within the catcher's "box" (in quotes since the catcher's box is never actually lined for routine league games, and hardly ever lined in tournaments), the umpire should hold the pitch and instruct the catcher to get in her proper position.

I can't imagine calling an IP for this.

Did you tell her this knowing that you were making up rules, but just trying to get her to move back? Or are you not aware that you've just made up a rule?

Making up rules??????????



ASA POE 8. Catcher's Box
[snip]
(Fast Pitch Only) Catchers must remain in the catcher's box until the pitch is released. During a regular pitch to a batter, should the batter be in the front of the batter's box, the catcher can move closer to the plate without penalty. At all times, the catcher must still avoid catcher's obstruction as the batter legally has the right to the entire batter's box.

Obstruction does not require contact between the catcher and the bat or the batter. The umpire's request to move farther away from the batter ot avoid injury or obstruction should always be obeyed.

ASA POE 38. Obstruction
[large snip]
(Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch where stealing is allowed) If a catcher reaches forward, (over or in front of home plate) in an attempt to catch a the pitched ball, catcher's obstruction could be ruled.

Quotes are from the 2005 Rule Book.

tcannizzo,

Perhaps it would be useful to refocus on what catcher's obstruction actually is.
You wrote:First, it is not possible to obstruct the strike zone. The strike zone is not a batter. Second, merely having the mitt over the plate is not necessarily bothering the batter at all.
"Could" not "shall." The reaching over the plate is not, in and of itself, obstruction. What this is saying is that if, by reaching over the plate, the catcher obstructs the batter's attempt to hit the pitch, that contact with the bat is not necessary for the call. But, still, obstructing the batter is required.

The problem I had with your warning was not that you gave the warning, but that you told the catcher that you would make the call for merely having her mitt over the plate even if it had no effect on the batter. That is not supported by the rules.

And to follow up Tom's eloquent post, clearly this is not catcher's OBS.

Catchers catch, hitters hit, and umpires umpire. If obstruction happens, call it. If it doesn't happen, nothing to call or do. I'll grant that just about all of my games are not with really young or even inexperienced catchers - but I'm not telling a catcher where he/she can or can't be, at least with this post.

Incorrect application? Possibly. Let's debate.

Preventative Umpiring? Absolutley. Why wait for the pitch to be thrown?

Making up rules? Give me a break.

Let's focus more on the rule, rather than looking for boogers in my post.

I agree about focusing on the rule, as I said above. I wasn't looking for boogers, but taking you at your word.Yes, I believe it was an incorrect application of the POE. More below.Because there has not yet been a violation. Barring a safety concern with very young players, I would no more presume to tell a catcher where to set up so as to avoid CO that I would tell F4 to not stand in the baseline. There can be valid defensive reasons for the catcher to position herself as close to the batter as legally allowed, and in ASA, that is pretty darn close.I stated your rule support was pretty weak, and I still believe that to be true. You seemed to be taking your justification from the POE when the basic requirement of the rule the POE is explaining has not been met.

To answer the OP. By rule, the PU has every right to request a catcher to move back and should always be obeyed.


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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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?
:confused:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

tcannuizzo would call this CO, not a ball.In my view, you are missing nothing. tcannizzo disagrees with you (and with me). In tcannizzo's situation, no real obstruction has occurred, nor is it likely to occur. The batter is up in the box, the catcher is up to the back edge of the plate. All legal in ASA. Unless the batter moves back, there is no more likelihood of CO here than with the batter next to the plate and the catcher back in the catcher's box.

We may or may not disagree on a number of things, but I absolutley disagree with what you have written here.

ASA Rule 1 - Definitions
Catcher's Box - The area defined by lines which are considered within the catchers box. The catcher's body and equipment are considered within the box unless touching the ground outside the box. The catcher must remain in the box until (FP) the pitch is released.

ASA Rule 2.3 - The Playing Field
D. The catcher's box shall be 10 feet in length from the rear outside corners of the batter's boxes and 8 feet 5 inches wide.

ASA Rule 6.5 - Pitching Regulations (Fast Pitch)
Defensive Positioning
A. The pitcher shall not deliver a pitch unless all defensive players are positioned in fair territory, except the catcher who must be in the catcher's box.

ASA Rule 6.7 Catcher
A. The catcher must remain within the lines of the catcher's box until the pitch is released.


If the catcher's feet are up to the back edge of home plate, or anywhere outside the catcher's box, I will not let the pitcher pitch until the catcher moves back.

In my game, I had this sitch and asked the catcher to move back. In real time, I told the catcher that she could be called for CO. With the benefit of hindsight and this message board, the correct comment would be: Failure to do so will result in a NO PITCH.

If you do not agree with me on this, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you think this is over-officiating, then we will have to agree to disagree on this as well.

You forgot to quote from your favorite POE, Obviously (to me, anyway), this means outside of the normal confines of the catcher's box. Otherwise, there would be no issue of "penalty" to be "without."

And POE #8 specifically allows for an exception to that rule, but you choose to ignore that.


Okay, now what are you going to do if the catcher doesn't move because her coach told her to move up as the POE allows? Cannot call an IP or rule a ball because you are the one holding up the pitcher. Are you prepared to eject the player and/or coach for non-compliance of an umpire's direction?


I can appreciate your ardor toward the game, but it's not your game or your field. The game belongs to the players. Only if you are truly fearful of an injury to the catcher should you even consider telling her to move back. But only if that fear is true and not just an excuse to get the catcher to do what you want.

So, now you are going to throw a POE at me?

OK, OK, you guys win. This is just like home. My wife wins every argument, because each time I open my mouth it starts a new argument.

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.

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).

Phew.......