Catcher obstruction

[Ran.D]

Had this situation in a tournament. USSSA 16U fastpitch.

Batter has a full count, tie game, 2 outs, bottom of the inning with time expired, bases loaded.

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 should happen?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Ran.D

a fraction of a second after she catches the ball.

Has no bearing on anything.

I'm not up on U-trip rules, so speaking ASA, assuming you judge this to be an attempt at the ball, and the batter is in the batter's box, this is CO. Home wins.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Has no bearing on anything.

I'm not up on U-trip rules, so speaking ASA, assuming you judge this to be an attempt at the ball, and the batter is in the batter's box, this is CO. Home wins.

Speaking USSSA FP, delayed dead ball, in the event the batter put the ball in play. If all runners advance one base safely, then you remove the penalty for CO. However, in the scenario presented, immediately rule CO and award the batter first base. All other runners advance only if forced to, which in this case they are. As soon as runner from third touches the plate, you have a complete ballgame, home team wins.

[Dakota]

Ran.D,

What did happen?

[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.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by Ran.D

Had this situation in a tournament. USSSA 16U fastpitch.

Batter has a full count, tie game, 2 outs, bottom of the inning with time expired, bases loaded.

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 should happen?

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

1..Batter swings late, misses pitch.

That was not the situation offered.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That was not the situation offered.

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?

[Dakota]

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?

For one thing, the bat hits the mitt a fraction of a sec after the catcher catches it; I take that to mean nearly at the same time, so unless the batter hit it on her back swing (not the situation offered), or unless the batter reached back to hit the glove (not the situation offered), the catcher's glove, the ball, and the bat were all in the same place at the same time. If the catcher caught the ball before the bat got to it on a legal swing, that may very well be CO even if there was no contact.