Should I have called catcher obstruction?

[Dakota]

I was calling a 14U rec fast pitch game (ASA rules) on Monday night. One team's pitcher was the slow, arcing kind of rec "fast" pitch pitcher. The catcher had a disturbing tendancy to lunge forward to try to catch the pitch.

I discussed this with the coach, who continually reminded the catcher to not do this (to little avail). (I did call one catcher obstruction when the bat contacted her mit.)

However, on one pitch that was way inside, the batter was trying to back out of the way of the pitch & the catcher reached over & in front of the batter & caught the pitch. She actually prevented the batter from getting hit by the pitch.

I just called it ball 3. Even though the batter was clearly not attempting to swing, I am wondering if I should have called catcher obstruction.

(It made no difference in the game; the batter received a base on balls on the next pitch anyway.)

[SamNVa]

Dakots,

The rule specifically states that obstruction is an act by the defense which prevents a batter from striking at, or hitting the ball. Saving a batter from a bruise doesn't fall into this category, so you can't call obstruction.

SamC

[Roger Greene]

Sam,
I don't think a batter has to "hit" a catcher to get the obstruction call. If a catcher or fielder hinders a batter we may have obstruction.

If F2, seeing R1 stealing, steps forward and catches the pitch before it has crossed the plate, I will (and have in the past) called obstruction. This could also be applied to any other fielder cutting off the pitch, (although I have never observed that hapening.)

I the play at question, in which the batter is attempting to avoid the pitch and is obviously not attempting to strike the pitch, I would tend to agree with your answer, unless F2 is clearly stoping the pitch before it crosses the plate in an attempt to retire a runner.

Roger Greene