From a coach

[JaxRolo]

Got it on Facebook. Thought it might be a good discussion.

 

I have one for you from a coach... Batter shows bunt but pulls back and hits the catcher's mitt incidentally in doing so... Catcher's interference? Runner is also stealing. Not sure if that matters.

[th3]

did the catcher interfere with the batters attempt to hit the ball? i dont have Catchers interference/obj.... Sounds like batters interference no?

[maven]

I suspect that the question writer meant BI, not CI. But it's worth answering both questions.

 

This cannot be CI/CO, since the contact is not interfering with the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch. He's not offering during contact, he's doing the opposite.

 

OTOH, it could well be BI, depending on the result of the contact. Contact alone is not hindrance, which is the operative concept of most INT. The question mentions "incidental" contact, which for me implies that there was NOT hindrance (though that might not be the intent of the writer).

 

If the contact is not incidental in that sense, but actually hindered F2's play on the runner, then I would rule BI. If F2 gets a throw off that retires the runner, then the play stands; otherwise, the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the runner returns. maven

[JaxRolo]

I suspect that the question writer meant BI, not CI. But it's worth answering both questions. This cannot be CI/CO, since the contact is not interfering with the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch. He's not offering during contact, he's doing the opposite. OTOH, it could well be BI, depending on the result of the contact. Contact alone is not hindrance, which is the operative concept of most INT. The question mentions "incidental" contact, which for me implies that there was NOT hindrance (though that might not be the intent of the writer). If the contact is not incidental in that sense, but actually hindered F2's play on the runner, then I would rule BI. If F2 gets a throw off that retires the runner, then the play stands; otherwise, the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the runner returns. maven

Thanks. Makes sense.

[Magic]

I suspect that the question writer meant BI, not CI. But it's worth answering both questions.This cannot be CI/CO, since the contact is not interfering with the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch. He's not offering during contact, he's doing the opposite.OTOH, it could well be BI, depending on the result of the contact. Contact alone is not hindrance, which is the operative concept of most INT. The question mentions "incidental" contact, which for me implies that there was NOT hindrance (though that might not be the intent of the writer). If the contact is not incidental in that sense, but actually hindered F2's play on the runner, then I would rule BI. If F2 gets a throw off that retires the runner, then the play stands; otherwise, the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the runner returns.maven

That's how I would see it. Followed, surely, by sending a coach to the parking lot.

[Rich Ives]

I suspect that the question writer meant BI, not CI. But it's worth answering both questions. This cannot be CI/CO, since the contact is not interfering with the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch. He's not offering during contact, he's doing the opposite. OTOH, it could well be BI, depending on the result of the contact. Contact alone is not hindrance, which is the operative concept of most INT. The question mentions "incidental" contact, which for me implies that there was NOT hindrance (though that might not be the intent of the writer). If the contact is not incidental in that sense, but actually hindered F2's play on the runner, then I would rule BI. If F2 gets a throw off that retires the runner, then the play stands; otherwise, the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the runner returns. maven

 

Would it matter if, seeing the  runner going, the catcher stepped/reached out over the plate area and put his glove into the path of the bat as it was being pulled back? IOW nothing would have happened if F2 hadn't reached into the retreating bat's path.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I had this happen in a game a couple seasons ago. Batter squared to bunt, runner went, and batter pulled bat straight back into catcher. It looked very deliberate. I called time and called BI. Sent the runner back and called the batter out.

 

The coach came unglued arguing for obstruction. But I ruled for the same reasons stated above. He interfered with the catchers opportunity to make a play, the catcher did not interfere with his opportunity to bunt the ball.

 

Almost had an ejection. The kid did it twice in the same game.

[th3]

I had a similar but different situation that I called incorrectly (i believe). A terribly over-matched batter swung literally after the ball was in the catchers glove. and hit the glove. I called CI (co) just fixated on the fact that the bat hit the glove and not taking into account that the illegal act is interfering with opportunity to hit the ball...

[maven]

Would it matter if, seeing the  runner going, the catcher stepped/reached out over the plate area and put his glove into the path of the bat as it was being pulled back? IOW nothing would have happened if F2 hadn't reached into the retreating bat's path.

That would matter for me, as it is not the proper position for F2. That would not be CI/CO, for the reason mentioned above: the contact, even if severe, is not hindering the batter's opportunity to swing if it occurs when he is bringing the bat back. No hindrance = no INT.

 

It would also not be BI, since F2 has no right to have his mitt there. IOW, F2 is responsible for the contact and any resulting hindrance. This is a kind of hindrance that is not INT because the player hindered himself.

 

With no INT to call, the ball is live, play the bounce.

[maven]

I had a similar but different situation that I called incorrectly (i believe). A terribly over-matched batter swung literally after the ball was in the catchers glove. and hit the glove. I called CI (co) just fixated on the fact that the bat hit the glove and not taking into account that the illegal act is interfering with opportunity to hit the ball...

 

Which rule says that we should rule CI/CO only when the batter makes a good swing?

 

Assuming everyone was in their proper position, I don't think you were wrong there. Of course, if the swing were 2 whole seconds late (ball on its way back to F1), you'd have something else.

[th3]

I dont believe he interfered with the opportunity to hit the ball

[maven]

I dont believe he interfered with the opportunity to hit the ball

You mean objectively or from his coach's dugout? ;)

[Rich Ives]

I dont believe he interfered with the opportunity to hit the ball

 

So if the batter's incompetent it isn't interference?  

[maven]

 

I dont believe he interfered with the opportunity to hit the ball

 

So if the batter's incompetent it isn't interference?  

 

 

As Rich seems to be suggesting, you're going to get yourself in trouble thinking of CI/CO in this way.

 

There IS a time limit for the swing (as I mentioned above), but I'd bet good money that the play you saw was within it.

[th3]

i think ill take the bet. and i seem to remember describing the play on here after it happened and everyone telling me that it was not CI

[basejester]

As Rich seems to be suggesting, you're going to get yourself in trouble thinking of CI/CO in this way.

 

There IS a time limit for the swing (as I mentioned above), but I'd bet good money that the play you saw was within it.

 

I once called catcher's interference on a poor, late swing.  The defensive coach argued that the ball hit the catcher's mitt, then the bat hit the catcher's mitt, and therefore there was no interference.  I stuck with the call, but I admit there's a logic to that argument. 

 

Nevertheless, I think we're all saying that the implied "time limit" extends past the ball hitting the mitt.  Right?

[Richvee]

 

As Rich seems to be suggesting, you're going to get yourself in trouble thinking of CI/CO in this way.

 

There IS a time limit for the swing (as I mentioned above), but I'd bet good money that the play you saw was within it.

 

I once called catcher's interference on a poor, late swing.  The defensive coach argued that the ball hit the catcher's mitt, then the bat hit the catcher's mitt, and therefore there was no interference.  I stuck with the call, but I admit there's a logic to that argument. 

 

Nevertheless, I think we're all saying that the implied "time limit" extends past the ball hitting the mitt.  Right?

 

Interesting. Definitely a lower level occurrence. Personally, I'd say the "time limit" is the ball entering F2's glove. Once that ball is in F2's glove, if the batter swings then...I've got nothing, other than maybe BI if there's a baserunner advancing.

 

As for the OP. I've seen it once. Runner wasn't running. I had nothing. OC wanted CI. Simply told coach the batter's swing, or in this case bunt attempt, wasn't obstructed.  

[th3]

In my case as i was calling it I was thinking it was wrong but (and this was back before I moved up from clueless to merely a-long-way-from-good) didnt know how to get away from the fact that the bat contacted the glove...i thought that was the rule.. the coach pointed out that the contact in no way interfered with the swing because the ball was so very clearly in the glove before the kid started to swing...and, while he was right, i stuck with my call and we moved on, but I was clearly wrong

 

so @maven - how much do you owe me?

[UmpTTS43]

OBR and to the best of my knowledge NCAA

Batter shows bunt early, pulls back and still has the opportunity to hit the ball. Contact is made with F2 by the bat. Ruling: CI since the contact interfered with the batter's opportunity to hit the ball.

Batter shows bunt. He pulls his bat back as the ball is passing him making no attempt to hit the ball. Contact is made between F2 and the bat. Ruling: This is considered back swing Interference. No runners can advance.

You can only enforce BI if you judge the contact to be intentionally initiated by the batter.