Strike or Interference?
 

I had this play yesterday in a NAIA game.

R1 on first no outs. R1 steals on the pitch and after the ball is in the catchers glove, B2 swings. No attempt at the ball just wanted to get in the way, but also there was no interference. I made the call no strike since there was no attempt at the ball and no interference. Needless to say the defensive coach was not happy. I explained that if I ruled it a strike and there was contact (bat on the glove) then I would have to have been obstruction since it would be a legitimate swing. So I was leaving the opptunity open to call interference.

What would you have had?

I think that I should have called it a strike and if there was contact then no strike and interference.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the batter swung after the ball was clearly in the catcher's mitt and there was contact of some sort? Or, are you saying that the batter was trying to prevent the catcher from being able to make a play on R1's steal of second? Or are you saying none of the above?

From what I am reading from your post, I have nothing other than a swinging strike, but as I said, I am not quite sure I understand your scenario.

Also, what is NIAI? Or are you talking about NAIA?

Contact with what? The ball? The catcher's mitt?

I'm confused also. So even after the batter swung at the pitch (late as the swing was) you called nothing? In your judment the batter swung but the swing was an effort to get in F2's way, why is this not interference?

This happened with my daughter in a game last year. Her coach had a swing and miss and steal play on. The idea is to swing a little late, still a strike, and give the runner a little help. She swung so late that it couldn't be called a strike, it was clearly interference.

If I ever see this play happen in front of me, it will be either a strike or interference.

Once I saw the NIAI, I put on my coaching glasses and understand exactly what is being said. Don't know if that is a good thing.

Pitch in the catcher's glove, then the batter initiates a swing. The question is, "at what?" Is not a swing an attempt to strike the ball? If there is no ball to strike, how can there be a swing?

Scooby's reasoning on not recognizing it as a legitimate swing included the point that if it was to be considered a swing, IF there had been contact with any part of the catcher or equipment, that would be CO. Around here, NAIA schools use ASA rules, so using that as a guideline, the book states that if the batter's swing is delayed and it is obviously meant to interfere with the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner, interference should be called.

However, the OP specifically noted that the batter's action created no interference with the catcher's attempt to make a play on the runner.

I think Scooby just overthought the situation. If the ball is in the catcher's glove when the batter initiated the swing, there is no possibility for the batter to strike the ball, therefore (unless the catcher stepped up out of the box to catch the ball) the catcher did not prevent the batter from striking the ball. No possibility of the CO. On the other side of the coin, if he honestly believed the late swing was INT, is should have been called immediately and not delayed based on the outcome.

Perhaps what he meant by no interference is either no contact or the catcher made no attempt at a play.

The batter swung late. In my judgment there was no interference, even though the batter was trying to distract or get in the way of the catcher.

It was not interference because even though the batter was trying to get into the catchers way she did not succeed. I am trying to answer your question not justify my call. I am posting this because I believe that I could have handled the situation better and would like sage advice from other umpires.

Leaving your call as you made it, (no strike, no interference) my comment is that you made the explanation to the coach too complicated.

Coach: "She swung. Why was that not a strike?"
Umpire: "The ball was already in the glove. She was not attempting to hit the ball, so no strike."
Coach: "Then that was interference!"
Umpire: "Your catcher made no play, and in my judgment, the batter's swing did not interfere with your catcher."

Simple, to the point. Don't complicate things with things that didn't happen (such as CO).

Call a strike anyway.

Let the offensive coach come argue "It wasnt a swing, she was just trying to interfere with the play and didnt".

Agree 100%

I initially missed this post of reason amidst all this.

[QUOTE=Scooby]It was not interference because even though the batter was trying to get into the catchers way she did not succeed. I am trying to answer your question not justify my call. I am posting this because I believe that I could have handled the situation better and would like sage advice from other umpires.[/QUOTE

At the point where you judged the batter attempted to get in F2's way would have been a good time to kill the play with a batter's interference call.

What would I have done? I would have killed the play, called the batter out for interference, and placed R1 back at first base.

Where does it state that there was no play attempted?

It really doesn't make any difference what any of us say here. In the umpire's judgment, clearly stated a couple times, there was no interference.

Would some of us have made a different call? Very possible, but without actually seeing it, we really don't know if it was INT or not.

I was only addressing his conversation with the coach, not the call (or whether I would have made it). He asked for advice on how he could have handled the situation better. There had been several comments on the call itself. My point was - in discussing it with the coach, keep it simple and on point.