Catcher obstruction

[Ran.D]

Plate ump (new, but not bad) called strike three. Third base coach very politely suggested it may be CO. Defensive coach argued passionately that "she had already caught the ball".

Base ump called a conference and told the plate ump "if you would have called a strike, then it's CO"

Game over.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Ran.D

Plate ump (new, but not bad) called strike three. Third base coach very politely suggested it may be CO. Defensive coach argued passionately that "she had already caught the ball".

Base ump called a conference and told the plate ump "if you would have called a strike, then it's CO"

Game over.

BU not much better. Right call, but certainly not a valid reason. As long as the batter was making an attempt to strike the ball, it is CO. Being a prospective ball or strike is irrelevant.

[CecilOne]

The only things relevant in this case are "making an attempt to strike the ball" "hits the catcher's mitt (with her bat)". And of course the conditional enforcement explained by Scott. Probably the same in all books.

Not the inning, not the score, not the count, not the ball/strike call, etc.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The only things relevant in this case are "making an attempt to strike the ball" "hits the catcher's mitt (with her bat)". And of course the conditional enforcement explained by Scott. Probably the same in all books.

Not the inning, not the score, not the count, not the ball/strike call, etc.

True, but in the specific situation presented, the conditional enforcement doesn't matter. If all runners advance safely at least one base, home wins. If not, enforce the CO and home wins.

But, your point is good... sometimes we (and more often, coaches) tend to get sidetracked by red herring issues, such as the argument made by the coach that the batter struck the mitt after the catcher had caught the ball. Doesn't matter, as long as the batter was attempting to strike the ball.

In the end, the correct result happened, but it seemed neither umpire completely understood the CO rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

True, but in the specific situation presented, the conditional enforcement doesn't matter. If all runners advance safely at least one base, home wins. If not, enforce the CO and home wins.

But, your point is good... sometimes we (and more often, coaches) tend to get sidetracked by red herring issues, such as the argument made by the coach that the batter struck the mitt after the catcher had caught the ball. Doesn't matter, as long as the batter was attempting to strike the ball.

In the end, the correct result happened, but it seemed neither umpire completely understood the CO rule.

You are absolutely right, except my point was excellent, not good.

I'm usually more interested in the full rule and concept than the specific case, which is why I threw in the conditional enforcement. IOW, know the rule and see the rules picture, as these umpires did not. Also, just call what happens and let the results follow, w/o worrying about the game situation.

[IamMatt]

Have any of you seen a case where the batter did this intentionally? Would not be easy to execute, but might a batter in that situation wait til the catcher had placed her mitt in its most "up and forward" position to catch the ball then swing widely enough to hit part of the mitt with her bat?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

Have any of you seen a case where the batter did this intentionally? Would not be easy to execute, but might a batter in that situation wait til the catcher had placed her mitt in its most "up and forward" position to catch the ball then swing widely enough to hit part of the mitt with her bat?

I allowed for that possibility with the statement that if the umpire judges the swing to be an attempt to bat the ball... However, I've never seen a late swing where I actually thought the batter was swinging at the catcher's mitt. It is possible, though.