Brain camp - foul or catcher's obstruction?

[scrounge]

Ok, after a low level 15-17 yr old rec ball doubleheader on a steamy, humid night, I'm having a brain cramp for some reason on what should be an easy call and can't find it in the rule book in my addled state.

 

Batter swings late at a very inside pitch, hits it foul straight to the right, and right after hitting it the bat hits the catcher's glove. I hesitate and call CO but then reverse it - admittedly after the defensive team coaches yell out "it hit the bat first". I distinctly heard it hit metal first - so they didn't talk me out of a call or anything. After explanation to the offensive coach ("I clearly heard metal first, it hit the bat first"), he was perfectly fine with it. But is that right?
 

I was thinking, the clear foul ball makes it dead, so what could the catcher obstruct/interfere? But now I'm stuck on it and hung up in a loop of not being able to find it.

[umpire_scott]

That is interesting.  I'll admit that I don't have a rule or case to back this up so it's just meant to spitball, but it seems like it could be called either way.  I would think that if in the umpire's judgement the catchers glove interfered with the follow-thru and thus still obstructed the swing then catcher's interference could still be the call.  However I also think it could be ruled, also based on umpire's judgement that the contact had nothing to do with the batter's ability to hit the ball.  I would think the timing would be key.

 

This is an interesting case and I anticipate those in the know answering so I'll be prepared if it happens to me.

[JaxRolo]

Tough call. I would have probably called CO/CI just because I don't know if I could tell what hit first.

[Rich Ives]

That is interesting.  I'll admit that I don't have a rule or case to back this up so it's just meant to spitball, but it seems like it could be called either way.  I would think that if in the umpire's judgement the catchers glove interfered with the follow-thru and thus still obstructed the swing then catcher's interference could still be the call.  However I also think it could be ruled, also based on umpire's judgement that the contact had nothing to do with the batter's ability to hit the ball.  I would think the timing would be key.

 

This is an interesting case and I anticipate those in the know answering so I'll be prepared if it happens to me.

 

From a physics perspective this doesn't mean squat. Once the ball leaves the bat nothing that the bat does or doesn't do (absent hitting it a second time through some weird quirk) can affect the flight of the ball.

[Larry in TN]

2.00 INTERFERENCE 

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

 

 

Not sure I understand how the bat hits the ball first and the mitt later.  Wouldn't the mitt then have to be way out over the plate with the ball already past the mitt?

[guyinaredhat]

Wait so the bat hit the glove on the back swing?   kinda hard to hit the ball first then the glove , Im having a tough time imagining that. 

[James Walker]

Were there runners on base? If so, he might have swung late to "disrupt" the catcher and just got lucky (unlucky) and made contact...

[BigUmp56]

If you're certain that the batter's hitting the pitch was unhindered and the contact with the mitt was after the ball had been struck, it's nothing more than a foul ball. This must have been one heck of an awkward, late swing.

Tim.

[BuckeyeMike]

Just to play devil's advocate........if I'm not mistaking, there IS a penalty for a batter who wiffs at the pitch, but hits the catchers glove on the follow thru, correct? 

 

That would seem to blow this theory out of the water that "if the batter was not hindered in his attempt, it's nothing". 

 

It's not exactly apples = apples in this case, I understand, but the premise (in my mind) is the same.

 

Or am i mistaking?     Truly a weird situation.

[clawdad]

Just to play devil's advocate........if I'm not mistaking, there IS a penalty for a batter who wiffs at the pitch, but hits the catchers glove on the follow thru, correct? 

 

That would seem to blow this theory out of the water that "if the batter was not hindered in his attempt, it's nothing". 

 

It's not exactly apples = apples in this case, I understand, but the premise (in my mind) is the same.

 

Or am i mistaking?     Truly a weird situation.

Rule 6.06 ( c ) Comment:......

 

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around

and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing,

it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner

shall advance on the play.

[BigUmp56]

Just to play devil's advocate........if I'm not mistaking, there IS a penalty for a batter who wiffs at the pitch, but hits the catchers glove on the follow thru, correct? 

 

That would seem to blow this theory out of the water that "if the batter was not hindered in his attempt, it's nothing". 

 

It's not exactly apples = apples in this case, I understand, but the premise (in my mind) is the same.

 

Or am i mistaking?     Truly a weird situation.

You're going to end up with the same result, Mike. This play wasn't interference because the pitch was fouled off, leaving the catcher with no possible opportunity to make a play on a runner. It's nothing more than a foul ball. On backswing interference, the ball is dead and runners are returned because the defense was potentially denied the opportunity to make a play; the batter needs to miss the pitch. You could have backswing contact with the mitt and see the ball put into play by the batter and not have INT as well.

 

Tim.

[scrounge]

As a clarification, it was not on the backswing. No runners on base, catcher was set up on outside corner and reached in for a VERY inside pitch. One of those odd 1 in a 1000 plays, but the batter clearly swung late and hit the ball before he hit the glove. I heard two sounds and the first was definitely metal. It was just so weird that I hesitated but sounds like it was a foul.

[maven]

I think it's more likely that you're misremembering the order than that he hit the ball before the mitt. Either he hit the mitt first, or the mitt was out past the point of the plate. CI either way for hindering the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

[JaxRolo]

I think it's more likely that you're misremembering the order than that he hit the ball before the mitt. Either he hit the mitt first, or the mitt was out past the point of the plate. CI either way for hindering the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

That's my take on it.

[BigUmp56]

You have to have a hindrance to have CI. It sounds to me like the OP is pretty certain of the sequence of events.

 

Tim.

[JaxRolo]

You have to have a hindrance to have CI. It sounds to me like the OP is pretty certain of the sequence of events.

 

Tim.

 

Its possible but these things happen in a fraction of a second.

[umpire_scott]

 

That is interesting.  I'll admit that I don't have a rule or case to back this up so it's just meant to spitball, but it seems like it could be called either way.  I would think that if in the umpire's judgement the catchers glove interfered with the follow-thru and thus still obstructed the swing then catcher's interference could still be the call.  However I also think it could be ruled, also based on umpire's judgement that the contact had nothing to do with the batter's ability to hit the ball.  I would think the timing would be key.

 

This is an interesting case and I anticipate those in the know answering so I'll be prepared if it happens to me.

 

From a physics perspective this doesn't mean squat. Once the ball leaves the bat nothing that the bat does or doesn't do (absent hitting it a second time through some weird quirk) can affect the flight of the ball.

 

 

I'm no physics expert but it seems to me that anything that disrupts a follow-thru can most certainly affect the flight of the ball.  Especially when it was so close together.

[BigUmp56]

 

 

 

 

I'm no physics expert but it seems to me that anything that disrupts a follow-thru can most certainly affect the flight of the ball.  Especially when it was so close together.

 

 

I'm wondering how a baseball that's been struck and left the contact surface of the object that struck it can escape it's assigned trajectory.

 

This could prove almost as interesting as the debate over the "rising fastball."

 

Tim.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

That is interesting.  I'll admit that I don't have a rule or case to back this up so it's just meant to spitball, but it seems like it could be called either way.  I would think that if in the umpire's judgement the catchers glove interfered with the follow-thru and thus still obstructed the swing then catcher's interference could still be the call.  However I also think it could be ruled, also based on umpire's judgement that the contact had nothing to do with the batter's ability to hit the ball.  I would think the timing would be key.

 

This is an interesting case and I anticipate those in the know answering so I'll be prepared if it happens to me.

 

From a physics perspective this doesn't mean squat. Once the ball leaves the bat nothing that the bat does or doesn't do (absent hitting it a second time through some weird quirk) can affect the flight of the ball.

 

 

I'm no physics expert but it seems to me that anything that disrupts a follow-thru can most certainly affect the flight of the ball.  Especially when it was so close together.

 

 

Once the ball leaves the bat there is no way the bat can then impart additional force to the ball. So the bat could even vaporize and the flight of the ball would not be affected.

[scrounge]

I think it's more likely that you're misremembering the order than that he hit the ball before the mitt. Either he hit the mitt first, or the mitt was out past the point of the plate. CI either way for hindering the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

 

It's certainly possible but I'm pretty sure it was bat first. It was a very inside pitch that he not so much 'hit' as 'deflected' really. The ball shot directly to the right and a little back, a little more than 90 degrees to the pitch. The glove probably was past the point of the plate, but I really don't believe it had any impact on the swing, such that it was. Just one of those weird, what the heck was that kind of plays that you see in crappy rec ball!

[noumpere]

For this to happen, then I think the catcher would have no chance to catch the pitch.  Do you think you would have been hit if the batter hadn't "protected" you?

[scrounge]

For this to happen, then I think the catcher would have no chance to catch the pitch.  Do you think you would have been hit if the batter hadn't "protected" you?

 

Hmm, that's an interesting question...I'm not sure. Maybe that's what happened, the catcher was late to reach out but I couldn't honestly remember to say one way or the other. I was so focused on the weirdness of it and trying to 'replay' the sounds and sights in my head to confirm the order that I didn't focus on that. There's a certainly a good chance it would have. Which would have been the THIRD inside pitch that did hit me that game!

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm no physics expert but it seems to me that anything that disrupts a follow-thru can most certainly affect the flight of the ball.  Especially when it was so close together.

 

 

I'm wondering how a baseball that's been struck and left the contact surface of the object that struck it can escape it's assigned trajectory.

 

This could prove almost as interesting as the debate over the "rising fastball."

 

Tim.

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

[maven]

You have to have a hindrance to have CI.

 

You sure you want to stick with that?

[BigUmp56]

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.