Catcher's Balk???

[Mr Umpire]

It only muddies the water when the batter's action is considered. The catcher alone caused the inteference so it is solely his actions that need to be reviewed. I think some of you are overthinking this

In some cases, the batter's actions have to be taken into account. If it isn't, then how can INT be determined. He has to swing and contact F2's glove for most CI's I have seen. If he doesn't, then how did F2 interfere with him?

Again, this may be a HTBT b/c as I envision a pitch out, F2 generally steps up and is pretty close to even with the batter as he catches the ball. Watch a good F2. He is stepping a little toward 2B and will be positioned just out of glove's reach of the batter at the start of the at-bat. Don't you think that little step forward puts him about even with the batter?

As I envision the play, it is definitely HTBT for me b/c "There has to be INT to call INT." And, I am not envisioning it as that especially since the batter didn't even offer at the pitch and F2 was not in front of the plate.

[PeteBooth]

"There has to be INT to call INT."

You do not need CONTACT to rule interference.

examples;

1. R1: Ground ball to F4 in which R1 lets ball go through him BUT stands stationary in front of F4 screening him. - Interference on the part of R1.

2. R1: Hit and run B1 takes a "mean cut" and his momentum carries him right in front of F2. F2 makes no throw. - BI FWIW: This happened to Mike Piazza when he was a member of the Mets in a game vs. the Braves and BI was called with No throw from Piazza.

When you PREVENT someone from doing something like hitting the baseball or throwing out a runner it's interference even though there was NO contact made.

Pete Booth

[carolinablue]

I would like to enter this into the debate for consideration, here the part I bolded seems to say the catcher can do what was mentioned in the OP. He left his position in the box in order to make a play on a runner that was stealing. It says also he can do it at any time not only after the ball has crossed the plate. I'm not saying this is the right rule for this situation as I am not sure at this time. It does seem to me that what the F2 done was legal by rule, so it would require the INT. to actually occur for it to be called.

4.03 When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a) The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

[PeteBooth]

I would like to enter this into the debate for consideration, here the part I bolded seems to say the catcher can do what was mentioned in the OP. He left his position in the box in order to make a play on a runner that was stealing. It says also he can do it at any time not only after the ball has crossed the plate.

Disagree

OBR 7.07

If with a runner on 3rd base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or steal, F2 steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches B1 or his bat, F1 is charged with a balk.

In the OP F2 stepped in front of home plate without possesion of the ball and denyed B1's opportunity to hit it.

A batter has a right to an unhindered opportunity to offer at any pitch he so chooses. If F2 prevents him from doing so by catching a pitch before crossing the plate then F2 has interfered with B1's opportunity to hit it.

Think about what you are saying.

B1 is in the box ready to hit. All of a sudden F2 goes in front of the plate and catches the pitch. You want B1 to purposely hit F2 before you are going to call interference?

Pete Booth

[carolinablue]

No, that is not what I want by no means. I am just saying, I don't see any jutification as the rules are written to call INT. unless that is what physically occurs . I could be misinterpreting or there could be a written interpretation I am not aware of.

[jnazz]

The problem with calling CI with no contact is that you open a huge can of worms for coaches to argue later in the game. Any steal with the catcher moving on the pitch will be brought up for debate.

As for the Piazza play...... He didn't even attempt a throw? There was no contact or throw?

[spiritump]

No, go back and read the rule, it only applies with R3 coming home on a steal or squeeze. The situation in this post has only R1.

if you think this is ok never work a game with me ---PLEASE learn the rules before you step on the field--sometime we as umpiers are our own worst enemy.

[Stan W.]

The problem with calling CI with no contact is that you open a huge can of worms for coaches to argue later in the game. Any steal with the catcher moving on the pitch will be brought up for debate.

As for the Piazza play...... He didn't even attempt a throw? There was no contact or throw?

Sometimes you have to do the difficult thing when you are the umpire.....and not calling a rule because a coach may argue later is taking the easy way out.....

Might be easy to avoid the arguement on this call, but it draws on your ethics and training in question if you dont....

[UmpTTS43]

You do not need CONTACT to rule interference.

examples;

1. R1: Ground ball to F4 in which R1 lets ball go through him BUT stands stationary in front of F4 screening him. - Interference on the part of R1.

2. R1: Hit and run B1 takes a "mean cut" and his momentum carries him right in front of F2. F2 makes no throw. - BI FWIW: This happened to Mike Piazza when he was a member of the Mets in a game vs. the Braves and BI was called with No throw from Piazza.

When you PREVENT someone from doing something like hitting the baseball or throwing out a runner it's interference even though there was NO contact made.

Pete Booth

If the batter does not make an attempt to hit the ball, you are not preventing him from doing anything. In the original OP, this is not interference. 7.07 is not valid in this debate since there was no R3 stealing. F2's actions make it possible for CI to occur, but there has to be some interference on the batter. The batter standing there with his bat on his shoulder does not make this a violation.

If a BR runs outside the 3 foot lane and prevents F2 from getting a clear line of sight, there is no infraction until F2 actually throws the ball, and INT is not a done deal. By your logic, it should still be interference even though there was no throw. This is similar in nature. Since the batter didn't offer at the pitch, there is no interference commited by F2.

Ultimately, if you judge that the batter did not offer at the pitch due to F2's actions versus simply standing there taking a pitch, you can have CI. I will need to see some reaction/movement by the batter for me to rule on this.

[jnazz]

Sometimes you have to do the difficult thing when you are the umpire.....and not calling a rule because a coach may argue later is taking the easy way out.....

Might be easy to avoid the arguement on this call, but it draws on your ethics and training in question if you dont....

I have no problem with coaches. My issue is where to draw the line. Do you call it when he's even with the batter? When he's 2 inches behind the batter? If his glove would have gotten hit? I know you guys think the batter didn't get the chance to hit the pitch (I may not have worded the post well) but if the batter would have swung, if he could have reached the pitch, he would have hit the catcher's mitt or arm. It's a reactionary call. When you react to the situation, you don't have time to consider ethics --- you just react. You call exactly what you see. Or don't call it if you don't think it's warranted!

[Rich Ives]

If the batter does not make an attempt to hit the ball, you are not preventing him from doing anything. The batter standing there with his bat on his shoulder does not make this a violation.

Since the batter didn't offer at the pitch, there is no interference commited by F2.

Ultimately, if you judge that the batter did not offer at the pitch due to F2's actions versus simply standing there taking a pitch, you can have CI. I will need to see some reaction/movement by the batter for me to rule on this.

C'mon Pete. If the first baseman stands 10 feet in front of the plate and catches the pitch before it gets to the batter, and the batter doesn't swing or have some reaction/movement you're going to say this isn't interference? Why would the catcher jumping out in front of the plate be any different?

Remember, the rule isn't catcher's interference, it's interference by any fielder.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

© The catcher or any fielder interferes with him.

[PeteBooth]

C'mon Pete

.

Rich I agree with you. I think were were referring to another poster.

Pete Booth

[PeteBooth]

If the batter does not make an attempt to hit the ball, you are not preventing him from doing anything.

How can the batter hit the ball when F2 does NOT give him the opportunity.

Pete Booth

[UmpTTS43]

Pete and Rich,

I understand your point of view, I am just giving a different perspective on it. We are not talking about a fielder catching the pitched ball prior to reaching the plate, we are talking about the catcher catching the ball out over the plate. There is a difference here. If the catcher jumps out in front of the plate, I will agree with you. In the OP, he gets out a little, maybe gets even with the batter. At this stage, the catcher has not hindered the batter in his attempt to hit the ball. I maintain that if the batter does not offer due to his own perogotive, I cannot, in good conscience with a sense of fair play, call CI in this situation. I do agree, and have stated so, that if I feel the batter did not offer due to the catcher's actions, I can get, and feel rightfully so, CI.

[mstaylor]

I have CI also. You can not catch a pitch before the batter has an opportunity to swing. On a pitch out it is supposed to be far enough away that it can't be swung at. I don't really think catchers come forward on a PO, they go sideways then into the throw.

[Rich Ives]

Pete and Rich,

I understand your point of view, I am just giving a different perspective on it. We are not talking about a fielder catching the pitched ball prior to reaching the plate, we are talking about the catcher catching the ball out over the plate. There is a difference here. If the catcher jumps out in front of the plate, I will agree with you. In the OP, he gets out a little, maybe gets even with the batter. At this stage, the catcher has not hindered the batter in his attempt to hit the ball. I maintain that if the batter does not offer due to his own perogotive, I cannot, in good conscience with a sense of fair play, call CI in this situation. I do agree, and have stated so, that if I feel the batter did not offer due to the catcher's actions, I can get, and feel rightfully so, CI.

No, there isn't. :)

[noumpere]

If the batter is intending to strike at the pitch, then he's following it from F1's hand to the plate. If F2 is just reaching over the plate (or outside the plate), then the batter won't even see that -- and the CI will be called based on whether the glove is struck. If F2 gets the body up that far, the batter will see / sense that, and the CI can be called.

[Rich Ives]

If the batter is intending to strike at the pitch, then he's following it from F1's hand to the plate. If F2 is just reaching over the plate (or outside the plate), then the batter won't even see that -- and the CI will be called based on whether the glove is struck. If F2 gets the body up that far, the batter will see / sense that, and the CI can be called.

So I guess we'll have to wait until you witness a bat breaking a hand or arm before you make the catcher stay out of the srtrike zoze - because it won't be just a tipped glove if the catcher's that far forward.

[Mike Prince]

if you think this is ok never work a game with me ---PLEASE learn the rules before you step on the field--sometime we as umpiers are our own worst enemy.

Fortunately I don't think I will ever have to worry about that. Thanks for taking my post out of context. Have a nice day.

[yawetag]

So I guess we'll have to wait until you witness a bat breaking a hand or arm before you make the catcher stay out of the srtrike zoze - because it won't be just a tipped glove if the catcher's that far forward.

I will. Unless F2 moves his body in front of the plate OR his glove is hit by the bat, there's no CI.

[Rich Ives]

I will. Unless F2 moves his body in front of the plate OR his glove is hit by the bat, there's no CI.

Tell you what Andrew, watch some real baseball.

Any batter with a clue as to how to hit will have his back foot on or by the back line of the batter's box.

If the catcher has his glove "over the plate" which is the (revised - was in front of the plate) subject here, then he will have his glove in front of the batter (closer to the pitcher).

And you think this is NOT CI?

[yawetag]

If the catcher has his glove "over the plate" which is the (revised - was in front of the plate) subject here, then he will have his glove in front of the batter (closer to the pitcher).

And you think this is NOT CI?

You made me look it up. I will change my previous reply to:

"If F2 moves his body or glove in front of or over the plate, it's CI."

I've learned something new today. I've always thought the glove had to be hit to call CI, unless F2 left his position and stepped in front of the plate.

[noumpere]

So I guess we'll have to wait until you witness a bat breaking a hand or arm before you make the catcher stay out of the srtrike zoze - because it won't be just a tipped glove if the catcher's that far forward.

This happens more than once in a game? I can say I've never seen it happen.

So, if it happens the first time and the batter swings, it is what it is. Neither of us can "prevent" it.

And, if the batter doesn't swing then I won't have CI. That doesn't mean I won't now try to stop it from happening again.

[PeteBooth]

And, if the batter doesn't swing then I won't have CI. That doesn't mean I won't now try to stop it from happening again

.

I have been umpiring for a while and I have NEVER seen F2 purposely catch the pitch BEFORE crossing the batter's box or put his ENTIRE mit in FRONT of the zone.

I know of NO coach worth their weight in salt would teach this either.

I have called CI or CO for FED but in the traditional manner meaning F2 was simply a little to close to home plate with his mit. One instance the batter did fracture F2's wrist because F2's wrist was more then just a tad in the zone.

HOWEVER, if I see F2 for some strange and dangerous reason catch the pitch or put his ENTIRE glove in from of home plate preventing F2 from hitting it I will call CI or CO because that is EXACTLY what F2 is doing. As I stated in another response you do not need contact to call interference.

Pete Booth

[Umpire in Chief]

And, if the batter doesn't swing then I won't have CI. That doesn't mean I won't now try to stop it from happening again.

Many times in youth games I've called time and asked the catcher to scoot back a little. I'm going to prevent it in a youth game if I think it is going to be an issue. Higher levels the catcher should know what he's doing and if he wants to position himself at the front of his box on a batter that is at the very back of his box. That's his prerogative. I've actually been surprised at a catcher who doesn't get hit.