Catchers Obstruction
 

Had a situation the other night in my game and was asked by a coach a few nights later about the same situation in an out of town game. The batter squares to bunt but decides the pitch is a ball and pulls the bat back. While bringing the bat back it hits the catchers glove. I didn't call catchers obstruction due to the batter being in the act of pulling the bat back. The rule in ASA and NFHS both are along the same line. They both state that when the catcher obstructs, hinders, or prevents the batter from hitting the ball. My take is the batter is not trying to hit the ball, but just the opposite. What are some other peoples thoughts?

How can you be sure that she wasn't pulling back to then chop at the ball as the pitch came in? I got OBS on this one.

That's why we get the big bucks. Unless there was actually a possibility of the batter striking the ball, it is nothing.

That is a good point Sean, but in both cases the ball was at the catcher by the time the bat hit the glove. Like Mike says that's why we get paid the big bucks, to make a decision and take the heat. In my case there was no way the batter could have hit the ball after pulling back. The coach told me that in the other one the ball was past the catcher.

Don't forget, no judging of intent (j/K).

I think I'd have a big nothing on this...just a ball or strike and play ball.

Agree with Mike. You know "IT" when you see "IT".

Hmmm... so either you're telling me that I now need to determine intent :rolleyes: on whether she's going to swing the bat, or that it's a HTBT situation.

Ed: Was there a R on 3B?

Seems to me you have determine if the rule applies. If the batter wasnt hindered, obstructed etc... then it doesnt apply.

There are distinct differences in action when pulling a bat back and pulling a bat back and then trying to chop the ball.

Its not a stretch that the average umpire can see the difference.. certainly in most cases.

If determining "intent" on wheter or not she's going to swing the bat is a "toughie".....then I don't know what to say.

The balls on it's way to the catchers mitt when she's trying to bring it back. If you think she has enough time to draw it back...and still get off a swing.....call what you see. If you can't tell by her posture and where she's carrying the bat......nothing anyone in here can tell you will help you.

I didn't say that, you did. :) I stated that it could be OBS only if there was a possibility of the batter hitting the ball.

Besides, do you not have to determine intent every time a batter squares to bunt?

I guess where I'm going with this is, either we have OBS or we have INT. I don't buy the "incidental contact" argument. There's always a possibility of the batter hitting the ball, because we can't gauge the batter's intent to swing or not. If this were the case, then I've got OBS.

If I have a R on base, then there could be a possibility that by making contact with F2's glove/mitt, INT has occured. The Batter could have possibly INT'd with F2's opportunity to make a play.

In essence, it's a HTBT/judgement kind of thing. I could go either way... but I'm not just gonna call nothing.

(I don't see where you're going with the bunt question...)

Well to me it is just like any other OBS call. Just cause the fielder was in the runners way we don't have OBS unless it hinders the runners ability to run the bases. CO is the same I only have Catchers OBS if IMJ it hindered the batter from contacting the ball. If I judge the batter had a chance to contact the ball then I have CO and talk to the offensive coach to get their choice of penalty or play. If I judge it did not hinder the batter then I have nothing. A fake bunt slap /chop hit goes into my judgement of whether she hindered her from contacting the ball or not.

I do see your point on INT, again intent is not an issue. BUT like OBS just cause there was contact does not mean she interfered it is judgement again. So IMO it is possible to have nothing in this case.

Now that I have had a chance to walk out to my truck and get my rule book, read 8.1.D, and ponder this some, I think I've changed my line of thought.

If I were to call OBS on this all the time, then this would in effect train batters to hit the catcher on their pullback every time in order to draw an OBS call. We don't want that now, do we?

In looking at the definition of OBS, and 8.1.D(4), I have to ask if F1 hindered, impeded or prevented the batter from striking at or hitting the pitched ball... (gee, just like Irish said). I could then, by rule, not have OBS (a "nothing" call).

Bah. I like learning stuff, but I hate being wrong. :D :o

It is going to your statement about determining intent. If a batter squares to bunt and moves the bat, does not the PU have to determine the batter's intent to strike the pitched ball?

Intent? No. Attempt? Yes.
Are they the same?