What do you have....?

[GreyhoundAggie]

Got another one for you guys.

 

Varsity Game. Fed rules.

 

Top 1. R1.

 

Batter squares to bunt and R1 steals. Batter pulls bat back and hits catcher's mitt before catcher has the ball. Catcher unable to catch the pitch, he picks up the ball and throws down but doesn't get R1 at 2nd.

 

What is the ruling? I'll tell you what I did after getting a few responses. I have been getting the fun ones lately.

[th3]

i think i bave batter interference

[Mike Prince]

Where was the mitt when the contact was made - over the plate (e.g. catcher reaching for pitch)?

[maineump]

I have to agree with Mike - where is the catcher and his glove? This feint bunt thing is common on a steal, and if the catcher is out over the plate it makes a difference to me. Usually the catcher can tell if this is a sac bunt or a fake, and adjust accordingly (unless the batter is real convincing).

I would have to see it to call it, I guess

[UmpJM]

If you DO have the catcher "reaching" over the plate on the contact, what do you call?

 

JM

[maineump]

If you DO have the catcher "reaching" over the plate on the contact, what do you call?

 

JM

Not sure  I would really have to see it. That is a really odd play that the hitter did hit the mitt on a bunt attempt, so I am guessing that the catcher had to be way up on the plate to get hit. Do we have OBS (catch INT) in this case?

Would the catchers glove being hit on a backswing be the same as the batter leaning out over the plate?

 

Great post - got me thinking now!

[bam]

It's either CI or BI, depending on where F2 receives the ball. Both awards are obvious.

[Called3rdStrike]

Ive got CI either way you look at. No matter where he's attempting to catch the ball,he is still interfering with the batters ability to hit the baseball. What if he was slashing?

[GreyhoundAggie]

I figured this would get an interesting mix of responses.

 

This same play happened to me twice this year, same team both times.

 

In my opinion, I did not think the catcher reached over or in front of the plate if that makes the decision more clear.

 

I'm interested to see where the consensus comes down on this one, and to see if I got it right.

[maineump]

My question - where do we draw the line between BI and CI? Where the ball is? If the batter is leaning out over the plate? If the same team has done this twice (shouldn't matter) - is it intentional on the batters part? Is the catcher receiving the ball where he normally does?

The batter has the right to hit the ball, but the catcher has a right to make the play without BI.

 

Lots of what if's here?      

 

After reading Greyhounds last post -  To me it would seem to be BI because the contact was made on the backswing by the batter - same as if he took a huge cut and hit the catcher on the backswing.

[Mike Prince]

Reading this on the internet and having it front of you are two different things.  If I had this, I'd probably be inclined to call BI - as described, the bat hit the glove after there was no further intent for the batter to hit the ball (he completed his swing).  Why couldn't the ball have hit the bat and made things easy?  

 

HTBT there for sure and a lot to process in a very short period of time.

[GreyhoundAggie]

Not at all maineump, that's why i posted it here. It had me thinking a bunch too, because it's not black and white.

 

It's definitely CI if the batter was bunting the ball, or swinging at the pitch, that is cut and dry. But is it different when he is not swinging or offering?

 

I'll let this go for a little longer before I post what I ruled and why. And also what the coach argued.

 

It's stuff like this that frustrates and makes me love the sh&t out of umpiring.

[Jimurray]

I figured this would get an interesting mix of responses.

 

This same play happened to me twice this year, same team both times.

 

In my opinion, I did not think the catcher reached over or in front of the plate if that makes the decision more clear.

 

I'm interested to see where the consensus comes down on this one, and to see if I got it right.

If it was the same team the coach might be teaching them to stick the bat back there to protect the steal. I've had teams fake bunt and bring the bat back to the catcher's mask. BI.

[tldavis19]

I'm going with BI. By pulling the bat back IMO the batter has given up on the pitch and interfered with the catcher's ability to catch the ball.

[grayhawk]

I have BI on this play.

 

7-3:  Batting Infractions - A Batter Shall Not:

 

Article 5:  Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

c.  making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

 

Pulling the bat back on a bunt and hitting the catcher's mitt is certainly "any other movement" that hindered the catcher's attempt to play on R1.  Batter is out, R1 returns.

[GreyhoundAggie]

Ok. I will chime in on what I had.

 

I ruled BI. I told the Offensive Coach that his batter had interfered with the catcher's opportunity to make the play. He was arguing that "it only applies when the catcher has already caught the ball."

 

If his batter had been swinging, or offering at the pitch, I would have had Catcher's Obstruction, but that wasn't the case. I got together with my partner to check on my interpretation of the rule and the play. He agreed with me.

 

The coach was not happy and told me "I was cheating him by calling the batter out" I told him I had made the call and that was it. He wanted to go out and talk to my partner about it (My partner was about 70 and is known in the association). I told him we had discussed it and we were in agreement. He went back towards his box and was still snarking and yelling to my partner he wanted to go talk to him. I was about to warn him, when my partner called time and told the coach "If you want to discuss it, you can come out here and talk to me normally."

I wish I had shut him down earlier.

 

He still didn't agree, but we played on. They ended up winning 21-4.

 

Right or wrong, that is how I ruled.

 

Grayhawk,

That is a good rule, I looked up and noticed that too, and this easily could fall under that. I view it as, if the catcher didn't do anything to specifically be Catcher's Obstruction, then it would fall under BI. The batter wasn't swinging, and the catcher didn't reach over or in front of the plate. He is entitled to try and make the play.

[Umpire in Chief]

Indeed it is a HTBT situation. Here's my cop-out answer... (and I know BI doesn't have to be intentional) so read my intent

If I believe the batter's actions are what I would considered normal for the situation and he is not "actively" interfering I would not rule BI. IMO just presenting and pulling back the bunt attempt without any other factors wouldn't cut it.

I also can't think of a situation where a batter who is pulling back his bat should be awarded CI. Be pulling back his bat he is rescinding his attempt to strike at the ball and can therefore a CI penalty/award would not apply.

So absent anything out of the ordinary I'd have nothing.

[grayhawk]

The best way to handle this, IMO, would be to allow the umpire to send runners back without getting an out on the batter.  Fed has no such provision, but OBR does.

 

And Warren, I think it would be hard to justify allowing R1 to steal second when the batter clearly hindered F2's ability to make the play.  Otherwise, coaches would exploit this as often as possible.  Baseball just ain't always fair.  The batter probably didn't mean to interfere, but there are many other examples where unintentional actions by a player result in a penalty.  Stuff happens.

 

Greyhound, you sure seemed to give that coach a ton of rope.  Did he really say you "cheated him"?  And unless your partner was the crew chief, he should have never said the coach could talk with him about this play.

[GreyhoundAggie]

He said you cost me an out or cheated me an out, something along those lines. He was chirping on the way back to the box and then still chirping a bit when he got there. I was taking off my mask to shut him down when my partner stepped in.

 

We don't have assigned crew chiefs, but usually default to the PU which was me. I think it came down to the fact that the coach "knows" my partner and was familiar with him, having been in the chapter for many years.

 

Game management is definitely my weakest area and something I am working hard on.

[grayhawk]

He said you cost me an out or cheated me an out, something along those lines. He was chirping on the way back to the box and then still chirping a bit when he got there. I was taking off my mask to shut him down when my partner stepped in.

 

We don't have assigned crew chiefs, but usually default to the PU which was me. I think it came down to the fact that the coach "knows" my partner and was familiar with him, having been in the chapter for many years.

 

Game management is definitely my weakest area and something I am working hard on.

 

It wasn't your fault, it was your partner's.  He should not have spoken to the coach at all, much less offer the opportunity to come out and talk with him about your call.  It wasn't his place to try to smooth things over.  I only mentioned the stuff about the crew chief because that is the one case I can think of that would make it okay,

[Called3rdStrike]

I have BI on this play.

 

7-3:  Batting Infractions - A Batter Shall Not:

 

Article 5:  Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

c.  making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

 

Pulling the bat back on a bunt and hitting the catcher's mitt is certainly "any other movement" that hindered the catcher's attempt to play on R1.  Batter is out, R1 returns.

So I ask you again. What if he was slashing?

So if he attempts to bunt and misses and the catcher whiffs on the ball and it goes straight to the backstop, hasn't the batter hindered the catchers ability to make a play on the runner? Are we going to call him out for screening the catcher?

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm seeing it the other way. In the OP the batter did nothing intentional but lay a fake bunt. It's not as if he intentionally went after the catchers glove.

Catchers Interference.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

I first thought back swing interference, but then after consideration, I nixed that, based on the fact that the batter never swung. I can only come to the conclusion of batter interference.

[Mike Prince]

I have BI on this play.

7-3: Batting Infractions - A Batter Shall Not:

Article 5: Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

Pulling the bat back on a bunt and hitting the catcher's mitt is certainly "any other movement" that hindered the catcher's attempt to play on R1. Batter is out, R1 returns.

So I ask you again. What if he was slashing?

So if he attempts to bunt and misses and the catcher whiffs on the ball and it goes straight to the backstop, hasn't the batter hindered the catchers ability to make a play on the runner? Are we going to call him out for screening the catcher?

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm seeing it the other way. In the OP the batter did nothing intentional but lay a fake bunt. It's not as if he intentionally went after the catchers glove.

Catchers Interference.

Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. Most interference isn't intentional.

[grayhawk]

I have BI on this play.

 

7-3:  Batting Infractions - A Batter Shall Not:

 

Article 5:  Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

 

c.  making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

 

Pulling the bat back on a bunt and hitting the catcher's mitt is certainly "any other movement" that hindered the catcher's attempt to play on R1.  Batter is out, R1 returns.

So I ask you again. What if he was slashing?

So if he attempts to bunt and misses and the catcher whiffs on the ball and it goes straight to the backstop, hasn't the batter hindered the catchers ability to make a play on the runner? Are we going to call him out for screening the catcher?

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm seeing it the other way. In the OP the batter did nothing intentional but lay a fake bunt. It's not as if he intentionally went after the catchers glove.

Catchers Interference.

 

If it was this easy to con an umpire into CI by pulling the bat back on a bunt, then they should do it all the time. It's easy to see the difference between a slash and a batter simply pulling the bat back. Intent is irrelevant on BI. Like I said, sometimes life just ain't fair. Calling CI on the play as described in the OP would be an unwarranted gift to the offense, IMO.

[Moriarty_45]

I know a coach that teaches the batter to drag the bat back at eye level of the catcher to distract him as someone mentioned earlier. He coached my son's team. I used to tell him if I ever worked one of his games behind the plate I would get his players for interference for dragging the bat back during a steal. I would say that over 50% of the catcher's never caught the pitch when the batter did this. I asked a college umpire about this at a camp I went to and he said he didn't have anything on the play. So, I changed my view on that maneuver. I won't call interference unless the bat contacts the catcher like in the original post. I still think it's bush league.