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.

[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.

[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.

[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......

[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.