Catcher's obstruction
 

Catcher's obstruction (mitt contacts bat), batted ball drops down, spins back and contacts the catcher (foul ball).

Is the correct call DEAD BALL - CATCHER'S OBSTRUCTION?

You are too sneaky for you to ask this question without a reason.

Your supposition is true assuming the ball was in foul territory when it contacted the catcher.

Nah, not being sneaky. Yes, catcher was in foul territory, so it was not a trick question.

Someone asked me the question, I answered with the call I said above. The only thing I left out was the ball dribbled back out into fair territory & runners were advancing (one would have probably scored). The umpire did kill the ball, sent the runners back, placed the batter on 1B, but then had second thoughts since killing the ball deprived the team of a run.

I told him I'd post it here.

its a delayed dead ball. if the batter and all runners advance 1 base, the play stands, if not, the OC has the option of taking the result of the play, or awarding the BR 1st and advancing runners if forced.

edit. the rule is somewhere in rule 8 but im too lazy too look it up

Tom, I am missing the point. Batted ball is touched by catcher in foul territory; so what if it then trickled fair after being touched foul?? Foul ball, or am I missing something?

OK, it was a DDB becaue of the catcher's obstruction; but then touched foul. Where it goes after that is immaterial; enforce the penalty for catcher's obstruction, batter awarded first, all other runners advance only if forced.

how can you assume the runners would have score on the batted ball if no catchers obs? there are a ton of possible batted ball outcomes that would not only not score the runners, but may lead to a double play.

its wrong to assume the batted ball would have done thing had the catcher not had her glove in the way

Rather than a blanket assumption, this seems to have been an honest accessment made by the umpire who was actually on the field and was watching the play. Regardless...assumptions or speculation aside, it doesn't really matter because it has nothing to do with enforcing the rule correctly.

Maybe because it seemed too easy.

"He" didn't kill the ball, the catcher did by obstructing and then touching the ball over foul territory. It was a foul ball, so no runners would advance had the obstruction not occurred.

Steve already covered the appropriate call and prescribed award.

my point was, had the catcher not obstructed, why would one assume the batter would hit the ball in the same manner. i would venture to say 9/10 the ball would be batted in a completely different fashion, thus you cannot assume anything regarding the runners bc 9/10 times you have no idea what the ball is going to do.

it wasnt a shot at the umpire, just pointing out what came across to me as a false assumption.

no love for me? that hurts