Catcher obstruction

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Maybe it was Mike....

RanD said:

Batter swings late at the next pitch and hits the catcher's mitt (with her bat) a fraction of a second after she catches the ball.

What am I missing?

Batter did not miss hitting the pitch, never had the opportunity. Just because the swing is late doesn't mean the batter loses his/her right to attempt to put the ball into play.

Obviously, as we all know (or should by now), that if you (the umpire) judge the act of the batter's hitting the catcher's glove to be intentional, that could be interference as the batter was not, in your judgment, attempting to strike the ball, but the catcher's glove. However, that would really need to be obvious and that may very much depend on the age level involved in the game.

[Ran.D]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

1..Batter swings late, misses pitch.
2..Catcher catches pitch.
3..Bat contacts catcher's mitt.
4..STRIKE THREE. BATTER'S OUT.
5..EXTRA INNINGS.

There is no way that the catcher interfered with the batter's attempt to hit the pitch.

Bob

Batter actually hit the pitch, but it was in the catcher's glove at the time of contact

When I'm calling plate I notice a lot of older catchers tend to "cheat up" towards the batter to get the best frame on the pitch, especially on a full count and that looked like what was happening here.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Batter did not miss hitting the pitch, never had the opportunity. Just because the swing is late doesn't mean the batter loses his/her right to attempt to put the ball into play.

Obviously, as we all know (or should by now), that if you (the umpire) judge the act of the batter's hitting the catcher's glove to be intentional, that could be interference as the batter was not, in your judgment, attempting to strike the ball, but the catcher's glove. However, that would really need to be obvious and that may very much depend on the age level involved in the game.

Gotcha......