Catchers Interference..? i banged him for it....

[Richvee]

If he starts a swing, makes an effort, but in my judgement, stops his swing rather than hit the catcher, I will call INT. If he was taking the pitch, no interference.

I believe 7.07 is very specifically about squeeze plays.

What will you call the pitch?

I think this is a legit question. If you're not going to call INT and the F2 catches it before it crosses the plate..what are you going to call the pitch? 

[BalkHawk]

RRHiKE!

[Ring 'em Up]

 

If he starts a swing, makes an effort, but in my judgement, stops his swing rather than hit the catcher, I will call INT. If he was taking the pitch, no interference.

I believe 7.07 is very specifically about squeeze plays.

What will you call the pitch?

I think this is a legit question. If you're not going to call INT and the F2 catches it before it crosses the plate..what are you going to call the pitch? 

 

 

you can't call it ..anything.. except maybe a 'ball'.  since the ball has not passed over the plate, and if the ball was a curve which hadn't lost it's velocity yet to drop in that pitch would be a ball.. my son is a pitcher.  that said he releases his curve at the batter's s head (on a  r-handed batter), the ball curves to the left, and drops in for the strike.

 

if F2 jumps out in-front of the plate 2 feet, my sons ball would be (at that point) a ball.  and most batter's @ 2 feet would be the split second decision to make that swing or not.  therefore F2 has taken away their ability to make that swing.  Hence CI.   

 

how could it be anything else..?  i think 7.07 def covers this.  which brings something up..  How many times have you "ever" seen this in NCAA/or any college game, or MLB.. Never...  why, cause they'll get banged for it.

 

ron-

[Jocko]

Can we interpolate 7.07 to cover other runner besides R3? Isn't that the spirit/intent of the rulle?

[Jimurray]

If he starts a swing, makes an effort, but in my judgement, stops his swing rather than hit the catcher, I will call INT. If he was taking the pitch, no interference.

I believe 7.07 is very specifically about squeeze plays.

What will you call the pitch?I think this is a legit question. If you're not going to call INT and the F2 catches it before it crosses the plate..what are you going to call the pitch?

you can't call it ..anything.. except maybe a 'ball'. since the ball has not passed over the plate, and if the ball was a curve which hadn't lost it's velocity yet to drop in that pitch would be a ball.. my son is a pitcher. that said he releases his curve at the batter's s head (on a r-handed batter), the ball curves to the left, and drops in for the strike.

if F2 jumps out in-front of the plate 2 feet, my sons ball would be (at that point) a ball. and most batter's @ 2 feet would be the split second decision to make that swing or not. therefore F2 has taken away their ability to make that swing. Hence CI.

how could it be anything else..? i think 7.07 def covers this. which brings something up.. How many times have you "ever" seen this in NCAA/or any college game, or MLB.. Never... why, cause they'll get banged for it.

ron- While I believe it should have been called here:http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/52499-vandys-triple-steal/

It was down below in the Vandy triple steal Collegiate posting.

[NFUA_44]

If I may speak for Mr. Jacksa and his esteemed colleague Mr. Roder, perhaps some of you may change your minds. I'm not saying this is in the rule book, per se, but many agree the interpretation is solid.

From Chapter 14- Defensive (Catcher's) Interference,

Ahem:

It is defensive interference (better known as "catcher's interference") if

(2) the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch. [7.07]

However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter

(5) completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch

The examples of interference have the catcher on the plate when the batter is partially squared to bunt, or even striding at a pitch but not swinging.

If you still think I'm rong, thanks for cowrekting me.

 

Don't worry about 7.07, and just look at 6.08 c for what it is.  Here is pertinent (in my mind anyway) interp. from the JEA:

 

 Professional Interpretation: Catcher interference is any physical act which interferes with the batter while he is

preparing or attempting to offer at a pitched ball. Interference by any other fielder most likely would be committed by a third baseman or first baseman charging  home in play situations as described in Rule 7.07.

A play following interference should be construed to mean a play which results from a ball being batted despite

the interference. A play which develops after an interference and is the result of a passed ball or a wild pitch should be governed

by the award of first base to the batter and one base to any runner attempting to steal when the defensive

interference occurs. 7.04(d) and 7.07.

Customs and Usage: The umpire should signal interference by pointing to the infraction and verbally recognizing

"Interference." The ball remains alive and in play until all play ceases. At that time, the proper award is made.

Should all runners, including the batter-runner, advance at least one base, the interference is ignored.

In the event that the ball is batted and a play follows in which all offensive players do not advance at least one

base, the umpire shall invoke the penalty implicit in 6.08©. It is then the offensive manager's responsibility to inform

the umpire that he opts to take the results of the play rather than the interference penalty.

 

I highlighted the important part.  If CI is any physical act that causes the INT during the Preparation or execution of that swing, it's pretty clear you don't need a swing.  I would say the J/R Interp has more to do with another situation where you have a batter that bails out of the box or does something else very unorthodox to abandon his station.

 

I own the Jaska/Roder and appreciate it for the work they put into it, but in all honesty I will usually take the words and wisdom of Jim Evans.  This information is from the text of 6.08 c in the JEA beginning on page 152.

[NFUA_44]

Can we interpolate 7.07 to cover other runner besides R3? Isn't that the spirit/intent of the rulle?

No need to, all the needed penalties are listed elsewhere.  7.07 provides the double penalty for that special occasion.  Spirit of the rule (7.07) was to prevent the defense from playing silly games in that one case.

[BalkHawk]

I highlighted the important part. If CI is any physical act that causes the INT during the Preparation or execution of that swing, it's pretty clear you don't need a swing. I would say the J/R Interp has more to do with another situation where you have a batter that bails out of the box or does something else very unorthodox to abandon his station.

I own the Jaska/Roder and appreciate it for the work they put into it, but in all honesty I will usually take the words and wisdom of Jim Evans. This information is from the text of 6.08 c in the JEA beginning on page 152.

in my opinion, J/R and Jimmy (and myself) are in agreement here. It seems clear that without some kind, any kind, of attempt, there can't be interference. As Jimmy says, the batter must be, "preparing or attempting to offer at a pitch". How can you say the batter was attempting to offer if the bat is on his shoulder?

I think this principle is held up throughout the OBR. If a fielder blocks the basepath while a runner is attempting to advance a base, you got obstruction, right. But what if the runner stops 3 steps shy of the contact and stands there? Do you still have an infraction?

F2 taking a pitch in front of the plate that also made the batter bail out of the box... This seems highly unlikely.

[Richvee]

I highlighted the important part. If CI is any physical act that causes the INT during the Preparation or execution of that swing, it's pretty clear you don't need a swing. I would say the J/R Interp has more to do with another situation where you have a batter that bails out of the box or does something else very unorthodox to abandon his station.

I own the Jaska/Roder and appreciate it for the work they put into it, but in all honesty I will usually take the words and wisdom of Jim Evans. This information is from the text of 6.08 c in the JEA beginning on page 152.

in my opinion, J/R and Jimmy (and myself) are in agreement here. It seems clear that without some kind, any kind, of attempt, there can't be interference. As Jimmy says, the batter must be, "preparing or attempting to offer at a pitch". How can you say the batter was attempting to offer if the bat is on his shoulder?

I think this principle is held up throughout the OBR. If a fielder blocks the basepath while a runner is attempting to advance a base, you got obstruction, right. But what if the runner stops 3 steps shy of the contact and stands there? Do you still have an infraction?

F2 taking a pitch in front of the plate that also made the batter bail out of the box... This seems highly unlikely.

Once again I ask. What are you going to call the pitch? Nothing? What did the PU call the pitch on that triple steal? He didn't call CI or a balk. 

[NFUA_44]

I'm not calling INT without a swing.

Then how do you explain this?  You have me confused here.  JE says nothing about needing a swing.  In post #18 you say if he was taking the pitch your not calling it.  How do you determine if he was just taking a pitch or preparing to swing?  Not sure about you, but I'm not good enough to make all those decisions in that split second.  F2 took away his opportunity to put the ball in play, period end of story.  I don't see where everyone is in agreement, maybe I'm just blind. You will also notice that there is nothing here that requires the batter to do something.

 

And if a F6 or anybody else is in the runners path without the ball and in my judgment they hinder or impede that runners opportunity to advance then your darn right it's OBS, irregardless of whether that runner stops short of the offender or not.  Absent the OBS where should that runner be, that's what matters, not whether he stopped or not.

Edited April 1, 2013 by NFUA_44

[BalkHawk]

Once again I ask. What are you going to call the pitch? Nothing? What did the PU call the pitch on that triple steal? He didn't call CI or a balk. 

 

If its a c :censored:shot, I'm getting a rrhike, In any case, I'm giving up on the pitch (just like the batter) and moving my focus to the impending play. Its very likely going to be a ball. Bases jammed? If I can get ball 4 then I get to put off making any call. 

 

How would I call strike 3 and call the play? THAT is a good question.

[Richvee]

Once again I ask. What are you going to call the pitch? Nothing? What did the PU call the pitch on that triple steal? He didn't call CI or a balk. 

 

If its a c :censored:shot, I'm getting a rrhike, In any case, I'm giving up on the pitch (just like the batter) and moving my focus to the impending play. Its very likely going to be a ball. Bases jammed? If I can get ball 4 then I get to put off making any call. 

 

How would I call strike 3 and call the play? THAT is a good question.

Hmm. Something I see here often is "take the less $#tty end of the stick." I think CI is that end of the stick here.  

[Jimurray]

I highlighted the important part. If CI is any physical act that causes the INT during the Preparation or execution of that swing, it's pretty clear you don't need a swing. I would say the J/R Interp has more to do with another situation where you have a batter that bails out of the box or does something else very unorthodox to abandon his station.

I own the Jaska/Roder and appreciate it for the work they put into it, but in all honesty I will usually take the words and wisdom of Jim Evans. This information is from the text of 6.08 c in the JEA beginning on page 152.

in my opinion, J/R and Jimmy (and myself) are in agreement here. It seems clear that without some kind, any kind, of attempt, there can't be interference. As Jimmy says, the batter must be, "preparing or attempting to offer at a pitch". How can you say the batter was attempting to offer if the bat is on his shoulder?

I think this principle is held up throughout the OBR. If a fielder blocks the basepath while a runner is attempting to advance a base, you got obstruction, right. But what if the runner stops 3 steps shy of the contact and stands there? Do you still have an infraction?

F2 taking a pitch in front of the plate that also made the batter bail out of the box... This seems highly unlikely.

Clock the catcher would work for you, right?

[Ring 'em Up]

 

I highlighted the important part. If CI is any physical act that causes the INT during the Preparation or execution of that swing, it's pretty clear you don't need a swing. I would say the J/R Interp has more to do with another situation where you have a batter that bails out of the box or does something else very unorthodox to abandon his station.

I own the Jaska/Roder and appreciate it for the work they put into it, but in all honesty I will usually take the words and wisdom of Jim Evans. This information is from the text of 6.08 c in the JEA beginning on page 152.

in my opinion, J/R and Jimmy (and myself) are in agreement here. It seems clear that without some kind, any kind, of attempt, there can't be interference. As Jimmy says, the batter must be, "preparing or attempting to offer at a pitch". How can you say the batter was attempting to offer if the bat is on his shoulder?

I think this principle is held up throughout the OBR. If a fielder blocks the basepath while a runner is attempting to advance a base, you got obstruction, right. But what if the runner stops 3 steps shy of the contact and stands there? Do you still have an infraction?

F2 taking a pitch in front of the plate that also made the batter bail out of the box... This seems highly unlikely.

Once again I ask. What are you going to call the pitch? Nothing? What did the PU call the pitch on that triple steal? He didn't call CI or a balk. 

 

 

Did i ever say the bat was on his shoulder?  and again the question has come up.. "what are you going to call that pitch?"  the "physical act", is the catcher moving in-front of HP taking the pitch.  the rule does not say 'contact'.

 

so.. for all of you who think this is NOT CI, tell us what you're  going to call .. ball/strike, and give your explanation as i'm sure everyone here is just going to ask you that anyway.

 

and for the runner stopping and standing.. huh? never in my 58 years have i seen that, and i know, i never will... come on!

 

ron-

[BalkHawk]

I'm not calling INT without a swing.

Then how do you explain this?  You have me confused here.  JE says nothing about needing a swing.  In post #18 you say if he was taking the pitch your not calling it.  How do you determine if he was just taking a pitch or preparing to swing?  Not sure about you, but I'm not good enough to make all those decisions in that split second.  F2 took away his opportunity to put the ball in play, period end of story.  I don't see where everyone is in agreement, maybe I'm just blind.

 

And if a F6 or anybody else is in the runners path without the ball and in my judgment they hinder or impede that runners opportunity to advance then your darn right it's OBS, irregardless of whether that runner stops short of the offender or not.  Absent the OBS where should that runner be, that's what matters, not whether he stopped or not.

 

I would explain that I mis-spoke, and ammended my statement a few posts later when I said if he is taking the pitch. I have also said that a stride, or even squaring his body to bunt without poking the bat out there are attempts. If the batter meant to take the pitch, what has the catcher interfered with.

 

I don't mean to generalize here. Everything depends. Did F2 come out of his crouch just in time for the play and step on the point of the plate? Or did he jump out front with the ball just being released, or did F2 end up way in front? If the F2 jumps way out front before the batter has a reasonable chance to decide whether he will make his attempt or not, that is something different.

 

I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL TO STEP IN HERE AND CORRECT ME. I know of one person at JEUA (not Jim) who agrees that you could NOT call the pitch. At least not in good conscience. 

[Ring 'em Up]

Once again I ask. What are you going to call the pitch? Nothing? What did the PU call the pitch on that triple steal? He didn't call CI or a balk. 

 

If its a c :censored:shot, I'm getting a rrhike, In any case, I'm giving up on the pitch (just like the batter) and moving my focus to the impending play. Its very likely going to be a ball. Bases jammed? If I can get ball 4 then I get to put off making any call. 

 

How would I call strike 3 and call the play? THAT is a good question.

 

Lets say F1 is banging his curve all day, he throws a curve when this happens.. now what?  as i said, that curve is gonna be a ball until the last second.  how can you tell whether or not that curve dropped in?

 

ron-

[BalkHawk]

and for the runner stopping and standing.. huh? never in my 58 years have i seen that, and i know, i never will... come on!

 

ron-

speak for yourself. I watched a 13 year old do it last week; going from home to 1B no less. And I got to call time and explain my (lack of) ruling. 

[Ring 'em Up]

 

I'm not calling INT without a swing.

Then how do you explain this?  You have me confused here.  JE says nothing about needing a swing.  In post #18 you say if he was taking the pitch your not calling it.  How do you determine if he was just taking a pitch or preparing to swing?  Not sure about you, but I'm not good enough to make all those decisions in that split second.  F2 took away his opportunity to put the ball in play, period end of story.  I don't see where everyone is in agreement, maybe I'm just blind.

 

And if a F6 or anybody else is in the runners path without the ball and in my judgment they hinder or impede that runners opportunity to advance then your darn right it's OBS, irregardless of whether that runner stops short of the offender or not.  Absent the OBS where should that runner be, that's what matters, not whether he stopped or not.

 

I would explain that I mis-spoke, and ammended my statement a few posts later when I said if he is taking the pitch. I have also said that a stride, or even squaring his body to bunt without poking the bat out there are attempts. If the batter meant to take the pitch, what has the catcher interfered with.

 

I don't mean to generalize here. Everything depends. Did F2 come out of his crouch just in time for the play and step on the point of the plate? Or did he jump out front with the ball just being released, or did F2 end up way in front? If the F2 jumps way out front before the batter has a reasonable chance to decide whether he will make his attempt or not, that is something different.

 

I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL TO STEP IN HERE AND CORRECT ME. I know of one person at JEUA (not Jim) who agrees that you could NOT call the pitch. At least not in good conscience. 

 

 

OK.... i think we need to re-read the original post... it explains what you're looking for.

 

ron-

[NFUA_44]

 

I'm not calling INT without a swing.

Then how do you explain this?  You have me confused here.  JE says nothing about needing a swing.  In post #18 you say if he was taking the pitch your not calling it.  How do you determine if he was just taking a pitch or preparing to swing?  Not sure about you, but I'm not good enough to make all those decisions in that split second.  F2 took away his opportunity to put the ball in play, period end of story.  I don't see where everyone is in agreement, maybe I'm just blind.

 

And if a F6 or anybody else is in the runners path without the ball and in my judgment they hinder or impede that runners opportunity to advance then your darn right it's OBS, irregardless of whether that runner stops short of the offender or not.  Absent the OBS where should that runner be, that's what matters, not whether he stopped or not.

 

I would explain that I mis-spoke, and ammended my statement a few posts later when I said if he is taking the pitch. I have also said that a stride, or even squaring his body to bunt without poking the bat out there are attempts. If the batter meant to take the pitch, what has the catcher interfered with.

 

I don't mean to generalize here. Everything depends. Did F2 come out of his crouch just in time for the play and step on the point of the plate? Or did he jump out front with the ball just being released, or did F2 end up way in front? If the F2 jumps way out front before the batter has a reasonable chance to decide whether he will make his attempt or not, that is something different.

 

I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL TO STEP IN HERE AND CORRECT ME. I know of one person at JEUA (not Jim) who agrees that you could NOT call the pitch. At least not in good conscience. 

Your still making stuff up.  NOTHING anywhere tells you it has ANYTHING to do with whether the batter is taking a pitch or not.  The only question is if his opportunity to do something with that pitch was interfered with.  You have no idea of what is in his mind and if he caught F2's movement out of the corner of his eye and by instinct decided not to swing.  He is preparing to hit the damn ball from the time he steps into the box.  F2 is the one that took the physical action of interfering with his opportunity.  In your previous post about what you would call the pitch your busy tracking the c*ck shot to call the strike, determining his intent by watching the batter, and keeping an eye on F2, you must be pretty damn good.

 

Why are you punishing the offense for the defense's transgression?  What your getting at makes ZERO sense in the scheme of things.

[BalkHawk]

Lets say F1 is banging his curve all day, he throws a curve when this happens.. now what?  as i said, that curve is gonna be a ball until the last second.  how can you tell whether or not that curve dropped in?

 

ron-

 

Check out this awesome steal-of-home play!

does anybody care if his curve breaks or even if it's a ball. There is a guy attempting to swipe a run! See something new every time you go to the ball park! Wait... what!?! The umpire called a what on the catcher? I thought I heard you say he  balked.

Man, I wonder if that breaking pitch was going to break?!!

[BalkHawk]

Great call in the OP. I would have called it a ball, depending on where the catcher was and how soon he got up, as well as whether the batter was clearly taking the pitch. If he looks stupified, I'll help him out, too.

 

I thought we were talking hypotheticals now, though.

[BalkHawk]

SWMBO thinks I'm doing homework right now

 

[Ring 'em Up]

#BalkHawk:

 

did you read the original post?  it seems you haven't.  you're way off track.  it explains the situation in detail.

ron-

[BalkHawk]

#BalkHawk:

 

did you read the original post?  it seems you haven't.  you're way off track.  it explains the situation in detail.

ron-

I don't know exactly what "jumps out infront of the batter" means. Nor can I picture in full detail F2's position when you say he is standing w/one foot on the plate. Was his back foot on the front of the plate?

[Ring 'em Up]

meaning that he jumped up from his crouch, moved in-front of the batter, took the pitch, after taking the pitch he reared up and threw to first and when he threw, the toe of his r-foot moved backward and touched the front part of HP.  and all this.. and the batter never moved from the batters box, nor was he touched.  all i did was stand from my crouching position, and think to myself.. "what the hell".  

 

to say the least it was the weirdest thing i'd ever seen.

 

ron-