Is it CI?

[catoblue]

Game I was coaching Saturday (LL Majors). This year I'm the dreaded AC coaching 1B LOL!!!!

B1 takes late swing, ticks ball and hits F2's mitt. U1 did not call CI because he said he heard the "ting" when the bat nicked the ball then the "thwack" when the bat hit the mitt.

First-off, I'm trying to figure out how that can even happen in that order - if so, why (better question is HOW?) was F2's mitt ahead of the pitched ball enough that the batter nicked the ball before hitting the mit?

Second, just supposing that it could really happen that way, wouldn't it still be CI?

I asked U1 about it, and he told me what he had, after I said "Huh?! How could that even happen?", and he said he didn't know but that's what he had, I left it alone (unlike some AC's, I umpire and won't go down the rat-road). Were it me, I'd have had CI.

So, what say y'all: CI or no CI?

Edited June 4, 2009 by catoblue

[BrianC14]

Game I was coaching Saturday (LL Majors). This year I'm the dreaded AC coaching 1B LOL!!!!

B1 takes late swing, ticks ball and hits F2's mitt. U1 did not call CI because he said he heard the "ting" when the bat nicked the ball then the "thwack" when the bat hit the mitt.

First-off, I'm trying to figure out how that can even happen in that order - if so, why (better question is HOW?) was F2's mitt ahead of the pitched ball enough that the batter nicked the ball before hitting the mit?

Second, just supposing that it could really happen that way, wouldn't it still be CI?

I asked U1 about it, and he told me what he had, after I said "Huh?! How could that even happen?", and he said he didn't know but that's what he had, I left it alone (unlike some AC's, I umpire and won't go down the rat-road). Were it me, I'd have had CI.

So, what say y'all: CI or no CI?

I had that happen in a varsity HS game earlier this season.

"Ting"

"THUMP".

I called it 'Foul'.

HC asked about CI, but I didn't give in, saying, "It was foul first."

I was wrong.

It should have been called CI, just as yours should have been called.

[blindumpire99]

(1)"Ting, then, (2) "whack" sounds to me like the ball was foul tipped (assuming it was caught of course)

(1) "whack/scrape/ pffft", then, (2) "ting" sounds like CI to me...

[catoblue]

(1)"Ting, then, (2) "whack" sounds to me like the ball was foul tipped (assuming it was caught of course)

(1) "whack/scrape/ pffft", then, (2) "ting" sounds like CI to me...

I watched the bat hit the mitt from 1B coach's box, looked like CI all the way from where I stood, but when I asked U1 about it... well, see OP.

I guess the question I'm looking for members to weigh in on is this:

While I still don't see how it's really possible, but will ask the question assuming that it is: if the batter swings and contacts the ball, immediately followed by F2's mitt (sounds heard:"ting-whack"), and you see the bat hit the mitt, do you have CI or not?

[BrianC14]

I watched the bat hit the mitt from 1B coach's box, looked like CI all the way from where I stood, but when I asked U1 about it... well, see OP.

I guess the question I'm looking for members to weigh in on is this:

While I still don't see how it's really possible, but will ask the question assuming that it is: if the batter swings and contacts the ball, immediately followed by F2's mitt (sounds heard:"ting-whack"), and you see the bat hit the mitt, do you have CI or not?

Yes, you do.

The foul ball or foul tip is irrelevant. The catcher interfered with the swing.

[Ump Rube]

Yes, you do.

The foul ball or foul tip is irrelevant. The catcher interfered with the swing.

Although I do feel that you are following the letter of the law Brian, I will put this out there...

If the batter has already had his attempt at the ball and has...

1. Missed
   
2. Ticked
   
3. Hit
   

the ball what difference is it that the bat now touches the catcher's mit? (I agree this is not possible unless F2 is up and in the other batter's box asking for the CI in trying to catch the pitch)

[Ump Rube]

What differentiates the bat hitting the mit after the miss...

4. In front of the batter (as in the

OP

)

5. In back of the batter (on the follow through)

?

Just yet another thought here.

[TomEllis]

What differentiates the bat hitting the mit after the miss...

4. In front of the batter (as in the

OP

)

5. In back of the batter (on the follow through)

?

Just yet another thought here.

If the batter is attempting to hit the ball and hits the catchers glove call CI. If the batter is on a follow through swing and contacts the catchers glove, do not call CI.

Can you tell me that you can determine that the ball is not still at the bat the split second it takes a batter to a swing at the ball, contact the ball, and then contact the catchers glove? How do you know that the ball was not going to go fair if the bat did not contact the glove? These are ALL HTBT situations. If the ball is already gone from the area, then yes you do not have CI, but if the ball is still there, then it is CI.

This is why the difference of your 4 and 5 above.

Tom

[mstaylor]

If the batter contacts the glove swinging at the pitch, it is CI. The batter should be afforded an unfettered attempt to hit the ball. On the backswing he has had his chance.

[Ump Rube]

If the batter contacts the glove swinging at the pitch, it is CI. The batter should be afforded an unfettered attempt to hit the ball. On the backswing he has had his chance.

The discussion I am trying to start here, is where we define his attempt ending. My thought would be once his bat and the ball have passed each other and are moving in different directions that the batter's attempt is over, even if his swing is not complete.

In the OP, if the events happened as heard then I would think that the batter's attempt is over and the CI not present because he has not impeded the swing pre-attempt, but rather post-attempt.

Thoughts?

[mstaylor]

There is an amount of carrying the ball when hitting. You don't really notice it but it's there. Why are kids coach to finish their swing. If the catcher interrops the swing in any manner then it's CI. Anytime the ball is over the plate area the batter has the right to hit it. The catcher has no business reaching into the batter's hitting area.

[Mr Umpire]

I understand what you are saying MST and agree.

But, I think Rube wants to know about something like this. I am exaggerating the point but I want it to be clear of what is being asked.

Pitch comes in. The batter swings but swings late. I mean really late. Ball is about to hit the catcher's mask b/c he is, well, terrible. The ball hits him just after the bat hits the glove. Is this CI?

Ex. 2 Pitch comes in. Batter swings late. Ball hits catcher's mask before bat hits glove. Is this CI?

Ex. 3 Pitch comes in. Batter swings late. Hits the ball and the ball is going to the backstop already. Then, batter hits the glove while not in contact with the ball anymore. Is this CI?

Now, again, I have over exaggerated this issue. More than likely, it will happen much closer to the plate and over the plate. But, I think this is something of what Rube is trying to ask.

Would you have CI on the swing if the batter has already had their chance at the ball and missed but it is not on the follow through?

[mstaylor]

Yes

Yes

Probably no but so far out of the realm of possibility it doesn't need to be considered.

I thought he was asking where in the swing you would quit calling CI. That's a question that can't be answered. That's a play you just have to umpire.

[BrianC14]

Yes

Yes

Probably no but so far out of the realm of possibility it doesn't need to be considered.

I thought he was asking where in the swing you would quit calling CI. That's a question that can't be answered. That's a play you just have to umpire.

I agree with your earlier assessment, and calling CI is what the correct call is. This "chicken and egg" stuff is nonsense, and it's why my no-call earlier this season was wrong as well.

When the catcher interferes with the batter's swing, it's CI. Period. You'll note that there are no exceptions in the rule book dealing with "What ifs". It isn't being a redass to call it what it is - CI.

[Mr Umpire]

I agree with your earlier assessment, and calling CI is what the correct call is. This "chicken and egg" stuff is nonsense, and it's why my no-call earlier this season was wrong as well.

When the catcher interferes with the batter's swing, it's CI. Period. You'll note that there are no exceptions in the rule book dealing with "What ifs". It isn't being a redass to call it what it is - CI.

There are many "What ifs" not covered by the rules. That is where official interpretations and forums like this come in. These help to clear up the "What ifs" part and make sure we are all applying them the same.

[BT_Blue]

something Im surprised about from the OP (that no one seems to notice) is why are you asking U1 to call the CI? That would be the PU's job not U1.

[noumpere]

Pitch comes in. The batter swings but swings late. I mean really late. Ball is about to hit the catcher's mask b/c he is, well, terrible. The ball hits him just after the bat hits the glove. Is this CI?

Ex. 2 Pitch comes in. Batter swings late. Ball hits catcher's mask before bat hits glove. Is this CI?

Ignore the bat-glove contact for a minute.

Would you rule these a (swinging) strike? If so, then the batter was offering at the pitch -- and it's CI if there's contact.

If not, then it's likely BI. :smachhead:

[Penguin]

My only experience with CI this year was really EASY! No one upset. Before I could even make a call the catcher stands up as says, "Crap, I interefered with her" Subsequently, it was an easy call for me to make. Both coaches LTAO! Catch looks at me and says, "Oops!"

[catoblue]

something Im surprised about from the OP (that no one seems to notice) is why are you asking U1 to call the CI? That would be the PU's job not U1.

When talking 2-man, I usually address the positions in one of two ways: U1 & U2, or PU & BU, not mixing the two. With U1 & U2, U1 would be Plate, U2 would be bases.

Had I been behind the plate, I'd have had CI, I just wanted to know if I would have had it correct or if my head is up one of my orifices.

[Ump Rube]

When talking 2-man, I usually address the positions in one of two ways: U1 & U2, or PU & BU, not mixing the two. With U1 & U2, U1 would be Plate, U2 would be bases.

Had I been behind the plate, I'd have had CI, I just wanted to know if I would have had it correct or if my head is up one of my orifices.

Cranial-rectal inversion is a common occurrence in the United States. It kills thousands every year, and millions more suffer from it's symptoms. Please don't become another casualty of CRI.