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

23 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

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.

 

 

 

This is another of many examples in MLB of a pitchout caught before passing the plate:

https://www.mlb.com/video/joseph-nabs-trout/c-118483283

Are you calling this CO in FED? I don't think the FED caseplay or rule would apply to a ball this far from passing over HP. If you apply the caseplay literally it would be CO if the catcher retrieved a lost grip pitch up the foul line. The wording of "before it passes the plate" might just specifically refer to the pitch that F2 reached out over HP to catch. So the caseplay is not so clear as you state. A swing attempt is not required in any code to judge CI/CO but umpire judgement is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

 

26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think the FED caseplay or rule would apply to a ball this far from passing over HP. If you apply the caseplay literally it would be CO if the catcher retrieved a lost grip pitch up the foul line. The wording of "before it passes the plate" might just specifically refer to the pitch that F2 reached out over HP to catch. So the caseplay is not so clear as you state. A swing attempt is not required in any code to judge CI/CO but umpire judgement is required.

 

 

*8.1.1 SITUATION G: R3 is on third. After F1 winds up, R3 starts home as in a squeeze play. F3, who is playing close for a bunt, cuts off the pitch and tags R3. 

RULING: This is a defensive obstruction. The ball becomes dead when touched by F3. R3 is awarded home and batter is awarded first. (5-1-2b, 8-1-1e, 8-3-1c)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cav said:

 

 

 

*8.1.1 SITUATION G: R3 is on third. After F1 winds up, R3 starts home as in a squeeze play. F3, who is playing close for a bunt, cuts off the pitch and tags R3. 

RULING: This is a defensive obstruction. The ball becomes dead when touched by F3. R3 is awarded home and batter is awarded first. (5-1-2b, 8-1-1e, 8-3-1c)

 

 

 

 

I don't have a problem calling that Sit as CO. Would you call the two MLB pitchout videos CO in FED?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFHS CB8.1.1G is not ruled CO, but rather "defensive' obstruction," the semantics can be a separate topic.

I don't know if I'm good enough to catch the obstruction shown in either video.  But, if I judged that F2 touched the moving pitched ball over fair territory, then my prosecutorial discretion may favor the offense; over foul territory, not so much.  

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If you apply the caseplay literally it would be CO if the catcher retrieved a lost grip pitch up the foul line.

NFHS 2-28-4 delineates when a pitch ends.      

 

 

           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cav said:

NFHS CB8.1.1G is not ruled CO, but rather "defensive' obstruction," the semantics can be a separate topic.

I don't know if I'm good enough to catch the obstruction shown in either video.  But, if I judged that F2 touched the moving pitched ball over fair territory, then my prosecutorial discretion may favor the offense; over foul territory, not so much.  

NFHS 2-28-4 delineates when a pitch ends.      

 

 

           

I was thinking of a still rolling dropped pitch being gloved by the catcher after it crosses the foul line.

But I do like your use of the foul line as an aid to judging CI during a pitch-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the day (low 70s, partly cloudy, light breeze blowing to the RF corner, dinosaur droppings everywhere) when Roder said that a batter was allowed the unobstructed opportunity to hit a pitch until the pitch was complete, even if it meant throwing his bat at the ball still moving on the ground or in the air UNTIL it passed the foul line or plate [sic].  I may be wrong, but I've abided by that guidance for the last few decad...years.   

 

           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are pitches all across MLB that are impossible to hit, that doesn't mean we get to decide what he can and can't swing at.

I'm surprised that some of you think that this isn't interference. Plus the CF camera angle isn't very good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 11:18 AM, Jimurray said:

I was thinking of a still rolling dropped pitch being gloved by the catcher after it crosses the foul line.

But I do like your use of the foul line as an aid to judging CI during a pitch-out.

Just because it can't be called a strike, doesn't mean he doesn't have an opportunity to hit the pitch.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Just because it can't be called a strike, doesn't mean he doesn't have an opportunity to hit the pitch.
 

 

I don't like the call. The batter, however stupid, did not offer at the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Just because it can't be called a strike, doesn't mean he doesn't have an opportunity to hit the pitch.
 

 

So if the batter had not swung the catcher in that video would be guilty of CI if he moved up closer to the foul line to retrieve the pitch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2018 at 6:07 AM, maven said:

I don't like the call. The batter, however stupid, did not offer at the pitch.

You are correct and would be supported by MiLB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

You are correct and would be supported by MiLB. 

Excellent! When UPS delivers my time machine and I go to PBUC 30 years ago, I'll nail it!

  • Haha 1

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

×