Catcher's Interference

[Thunderheads]

Question ....

 

Is this proper mechanics for catcher's inteference (using the 'foul tip' mechanic) ??   Honest question...........

 

Sometimes I see it, sometimes I don't ....

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24929703&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24929703&v=3

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24929703&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24929703&v=3

[krwill96]

Yes that is the proper mechanic. That's how it was taught at TUS, foul tip mechanic and point to the catcher. Maybe it's a newer mechanic so the older guys aren't using it? Just a guess.

[mstaylor]

The problem is CI happens so infrequently that you don't practice the CI mechanic and you do whatever happens. What is the proper mechanic for a 7.07 violation?

[krwill96]

I know it was probably a rhetorical question, but, I would just award bases then do catchers interference signal. You know the coach is going to come out for an explanation because he is going to have no clue what just happened. So you can tell him then.

[Jocko]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vUp0Z7atfZU

[UmpJM]

Never heard of using a "foul tip" mechanic for CI.

 

I was taught to point and say "that's interference".

 

JM

[noumpere]

Use it if you need to provide additional information -- not needed if its obvious what happened (like the catcher shaking his hand, or the glove out by the mound, or it's a small enough park that all can hear your call, etc.)

[BalkHawk]

The PBUC Manual Says:

 

The umpire should inicate catcher's interference by pointing at and calling the infraction.

 

It is suggested that the umpire then indicate the infraction by announcing (while facing the official scorer), "Catcher's Interference!" while indicating a motion similar to a foul tip signal and then pointing to the catcher.

[mstaylor]

To be honest, I don't know how you signal a 7.07 violation. I guess it depends how it happens. Say the catcher comes through the zone trying to get R3, I'm coming up with a hard time, pointing the runners up and turning and giving the batter first. No need to show catcher's interference because it isn't going to make sense to anybody. The point is that it happens so seldom, if ever, so a mechanic would never get practiced. 

[BalkHawk]

The point is for both managers to know, without question, the ruling you are making. They always want to come out on this one, better to own the crap out of this call, much like the umpire in the OP did. Whether  you use the foul-tip-point@F2 or just point at it.

 

Unless of course, there happens to be a scorekeepers table and a PBUC evaluator at your game...

 

As for signaling 7.07, you turn your mic on and look at the camera and say, "there are multiple flags on the play..."

[UmpJM]

I just signal a 7.07 violation (of which I've had exactly one in my umpiring career) the same as I would a CI - "That's Interference!" (while pointing at the catcher) followed by "TIME!" (since the catcher caught the ball).

 

There is only ONE very specific situation where the additional balk penalty is going to make any difference - which is why 7.07 is colloquially known as "the stupid R2 rule".

 

Place the runners and move on. No one is going to say "Boo" about it.

 

JM

[maven]

There is only ONE very specific situation where the additional balk penalty is going to make any difference - which is why 7.07 is colloquially known as "the stupid R2 rule".

 

JM

Funny, I've never heard it called that.

[mstaylor]

I think because the stupid R2 that wasn't moving with the R3 gets to advance. 

[UmpJM]

Precisely!

 

And the only time it matters is with an R3 and R2 only and the R2 is not "going" on the pitch.

 

Any other sitch, and the result is the same.

 

JM

[maven]

Ah, now I remember. I was thinking it was a "stupid rule about R2." But no, it's a "rule about a stupid R2."

[Umpire in Chief]

I like this video. because I could hear the interference. 

 

Sometimes we get the catchers glove out to the mound and that is an easy call, but many CI calls I've made I haven't actually seen, but heard.