Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Gfoley4

Was this catcher's interference? Don't think I've seen a play like this before

Recommended Posts


Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

Are you talking about the pitch out? That isn't CI IMO, Piazza stepped out to the side. Piazza was out of his box before the pitch was released IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, maineump said:

Are you talking about the pitch out? That isn't CI IMO, Piazza stepped out to the side. Piazza was out of his box before the pitch was released IMO.

I thought the rule was you just had to be in the catcher's box when the pitcher started his motion, not actually release the pitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

I thought the rule was you just had to be in the catcher's box when the pitcher started his motion, not actually release the pitch

Nope. It's the release of the pitch by rule, though seldom enforced.

And now, with IBB in pro ball, we should see it approximately never.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this video was cut or not, but it showed a runner at 1B at the end of it. Not sure how that came about, unless the call was Catcher Interference. A balk would have just moved the runner up.

We didn't get a long enough look at the umpires call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it was ball four it looks like a rule kick whatever it was. And be careful requiring the Catcher to be in the box at TOP (interp) or release (rule). The balk is only when he steps out during an IBB. Wendelstedt says the the catcher can step out early on a pitchout as it would not normally be an IBB.

Edited to add it was called CI, Piazza stepped in front of home plate which is not actually a violation unless a squeeze or steal of home is occurring or you judged the action interfered with the batter in any other occurence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Mike Piazza was called for catcher’s interference on this play. But that is not what made this game infamous. It was the fact that Mets manager Bobby Valentine was ejected and then came back to the dugout wearing a Mets t-shirt and a fake mustache.

It was on June 9, 1999, Bobby Valentine got ejected from a game against the Toronto Blue Jays in the top of the 12th inning for arguing a catcher interference call on Mike Piazza. Valentine was fined and suspended two games for the hijinx. The Mets eventually won the game in 14 innings, 4-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JaxRolo said:

Did the catcher forward in front of the plate. After stepping to the side?

Looks like he did. What OBR rule did he violate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JaxRolo said:


I have no clue. In Fed I’d be int

I think you mean catcher's obstruction in FED. But you should reread 8-3-1-c. The catcher did not step across HP but you might judge he still obstructed (interfered with) the batter. In the OP I wouldn't judge that. You might also consider it a violation of 1-4 but I have him legal at TOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 6:38 AM, maineump said:

Are you talking about the pitch out? That isn't CI IMO, Piazza stepped out to the side. Piazza was out of his box before the pitch was released IMO.

He was. I have nothing in FED and OBR. What do you have in NCAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He was. I have nothing in FED and OBR. What do you have in NCAA?

I wouldn't call anything. He took a pitch out. It is hard to watch the pitch and the catcher's feet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catcher stepped to the front of the plate. Not over but to the front nonetheless.  It's interference because the pitch hasn't reached the plate yet.

Not the only time it's been called

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Catcher stepped to the front of the plate. Not over but to the front nonetheless.  It's interference because the pitch hasn't reached the plate yet.

Not the only time it's been called

What rule are you using? I will say that the batter having his bat on his shoulder does not prevent you from judging interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

What rule are you using? I will say that the batter having his bat on his shoulder does not prevent you from judging interference.

If the pitch is caught before it reaches the plate how could you not say it deprived the batter of a chance to hit the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If the pitch is caught before it reaches the plate how could you not say it deprived the batter of a chance to hit the ball.

Because I'm judging it didn't interfere with him. Search MLB.com for pitchouts. Quite a few have the ball caught in doubtful territory. Stepping on or in front of home plate is only addressed on a squeeze or steal of home. Otherwise a step that lands in front of or abeam of HP,  normally in the other batters box, might or might not cause interference but the step itself is not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, OBR definition of interference: 

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

FWIW, OBR definition of interference: 

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

FWIW, I think we are all aware of the definition. How would you apply it in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Because I'm judging it didn't interfere with him. Search MLB.com for pitchouts. Quite a few have the ball caught in doubtful territory. Stepping on or in front of home plate is only addressed on a squeeze or steal of home. Otherwise a step that lands in front of or abeam of HP,  normally in the other batters box, might or might not cause interference but the step itself is not illegal.

I beg to differ. I will differ - to heck with begging. The batter can (as has many times) thrown his bat at the ball in an attempt to break up the pitchout.   If the catcher catches the pitch before it gets there how can he then do that?  It's CI all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I beg to differ. I will differ - to heck with begging. The batter can (as has many times) thrown his bat at the ball in an attempt to break up the pitchout.   If the catcher catches the pitch before it gets there how can he then do that?  It's CI all the way.

Have you viewed some recent MLB pitchout videos. What does the CI rule say? But, you are in good company with Randy Marsh, who was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Have you viewed some recent MLB pitchout videos. What does the CI rule say? But, you are in good company with Randy Marsh, who was good.

You're hung up on 6.01(g) (7.07) Interference With Squeeze Play or Steal of Home

You need this too:

INTERFERENCE
(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

And the latter is why it's CI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

You're hung up on 6.01(g) (7.07) Interference With Squeeze Play or Steal of Home

You need this too:

INTERFERENCE
(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

And the latter is why it's CI.

The location of the pitch prevented hitting it.  Some of the MLB videos show some good attempts by batters to try though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think is the applicable case play for FED. From the 2018 NFHS Baseball Case Book (but this case play has been in their book since at least 2003):

8.1.1 SITUATION F:  R2. After B2 takes his position in batter’s box, F2 clearly reaches out over home plate (a) prior to; (b) after F1 has made a movement that has committed him to pitch; or (c) to receive the pitch. RULING:  It is catcher obstruction in both (b) and (c), and B2 is awarded first base and R2 is awarded third base only if he was stealing on the pitch. F2 may not catch the pitch until it has passed home plate. In (a), there is no violation provided F2 and his equipment are removed from the area over home plate before pitcher has made a movement that committed him to pitch. (8-3-1c)

I think it is clear under FED rules that the play in the OP is catcher’s interference (or catcher’s obstruction as FED refers to it) because F2 reached out to catch the pitch before it passed the plate. No swing is required under FED rules, only the action by F2. Too bad the OBR doesn’t publish a case book as clear as FED’s.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×