2019 CBUA Video #9 - Catcher's Interference

[jms1425]

This week's CBUA video reviews a play from 2017, where the catcher steps out in front during a steal of home. One thing that is never addressed is the contact created that occurs between R3 and F2. In any other play, it seems to me that this would be malicious contact, per Rule 8-7:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge:

If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession of the ball, the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).

PENALTY: If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

I'm guessing the CI / Balk overrides the malicious contact, as MC before the runner touches the plate leads to him being called out, and because of the CI/balk we can't call the R3 out.

 

Am I wrong, or even right but with the wrong thought process?

[MidAmUmp]

The contact wasn’t malicious

[zoops]

I would agree that this shouldn't go MC (at about :35 you get a good view of the runner trying to bail; I think we need to remember the catcher is as much at fault for this contact as the runner is).  But, if it were, I think you'd have to call the runner out.  I'm guessing you'd still award the batter and other runners a base.  

[Tborze]

There were 2 outs, bases loaded. Play resumed w/2 outs, bases loaded. So nobody was called out.  If MC was called, inning would be over.  

PU points to F2 which implies he had CI. B6 was awarded 1st which forced others to advance. No need to enforce the balk. Correct?

 

[Jimurray]

Notice the batter's swing. Probably coached to insure CI is called. Not necessary but back then there might have been a no call or two when the batter had the bat on his shoulder. NCAA clarified that a swing was not needed to call CI but that coach probably was not taking any chances.

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, zoops said:

I would agree that this shouldn't go MC (at about :35 you get a good view of the runner trying to bail; I think we need to remember the catcher is as much at fault for this contact as the runner is).  But, if it were, I think you'd have to call the runner out.  I'm guessing you'd still award the batter and other runners a base.  

Wouldn't you score the run on the award and then EJ the player (if it were MC)?  (Seriously asking -- this is the kind of detail that leaves once you stop actively umpiring and start filling your brain with rules from other sports)

[MidAmUmp]

To answer the question...had we ruled this malicious contact, the runner would have been out and ejected. Malicious contact takes precedence over the interference/balk.

However, since it was simply an illegal slide, interference/balk takes precedence and the run scored, batter was awarded 1st and all other runners advanced 1 base. 

[jms1425]

5 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

To answer the question...had we ruled this malicious contact, the runner would have been out and ejected. Malicious contact takes precedence over the interference/balk.

However, since it was simply an illegal slide, interference/balk takes precedence and the run scored, batter was awarded 1st and all other runners advanced 1 base. 

That's the detail I was looking for - if it had been judged MC, that overrides the CI/balk. Thanks, MAU.

[GreyhoundAggie]

22 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

To answer the question...had we ruled this malicious contact, the runner would have been out and ejected. Malicious contact takes precedence over the interference/balk.

However, since it was simply an illegal slide, interference/balk takes precedence and the run scored, batter was awarded 1st and all other runners advanced 1 base. 

Thanks for the great explanation Jason. The coach from Sam Houston took it much better than I was expecting. I figured someone was gonna go ballistic on a play like this.