Did I miss the INT?

[kylehutson]

Situation: First batter of the inning. Right-handed batter pops the ball straight up. He apparently thought it went back further, and just stood in the box. Catcher did, too until the pitcher pointed up and yelled his name. Catcher pops off the mask and runs into the batter as he still hasn't moved from the box. Eventually the catcher finds the ball and gets a glove on it, but fails to catch it, about 2 feet foul and 5 feet from home along the 1st base line. After all this, batter is still just standing in the box. I just called it a foul ball.

Reasons for calling it INT: The catcher did run into the batter, and the batter wasn't running (so no tangle-untangle)

Reasons for leaving it as just foul: The catcher ran the wrong way when running into the batter (toward the 3B line). At the time, I'm just reading the (confused) catcher, not knowing if it's even going to stay in the park, never mind that it would have enough hang time to still be catchable after this scrambling.

NCAA ruleset, if that makes a difference (I don't think it does). In hindsight, I think I should have called the INT. Which is right?

[noumpere]

Had the ball reached the apex yet?  There's some verbiage in MLBUM or similar about that.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. noumpere, I couldn’t find anything about a fly ball reaching its apex in my 2015 MLBUM. But I did find something about it in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 104-107):

The granting of protection to a fielder may be withheld momentarily on slowly developing plays:

On fly balls, it is usually not practical or necessary to give any fielder priority (or protection) until the fly has reached its highest point…

On a fly ball that has not reached its apex, or on a batted ball rolling along a foul line, a fielder may not be a protected fielder, but is positioning himself for a chance to field the ball. In such exceptional cases, any non-blatant runner/fielder contact is probably incidental, and not obstruction.

R1. The batter pops a fly along the first base line. As the ball ascends, R1 and the first baseman briefly and slightly make contact:  since the ball has not reached its apex, priority is not yet given the fielder, and contact is probably incidental. Assume the contact was flagrant and occurred before priority was determined, but ultimately resulted in preventing a catch by the first baseman:  interference.

 

I know you have an old edition of the Jaksa/Roder manual so is this what you were remembering?

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, kylehutson said:

Situation: First batter of the inning. Right-handed batter pops the ball straight up. He apparently thought it went back further, and just stood in the box. Catcher did, too until the pitcher pointed up and yelled his name. Catcher pops off the mask and runs into the batter as he still hasn't moved from the box. Eventually the catcher finds the ball and gets a glove on it, but fails to catch it, about 2 feet foul and 5 feet from home along the 1st base line. After all this, batter is still just standing in the box. I just called it a foul ball.

Reasons for calling it INT: The catcher did run into the batter, and the batter wasn't running (so no tangle-untangle)

Reasons for leaving it as just foul: The catcher ran the wrong way when running into the batter (toward the 3B line). At the time, I'm just reading the (confused) catcher, not knowing if it's even going to stay in the park, never mind that it would have enough hang time to still be catchable after this scrambling.

NCAA ruleset, if that makes a difference (I don't think it does). In hindsight, I think I should have called the INT. Which is right?

Based on your description, INT. You don't know if absent that contact F2 would have had a better shot at getting his bearings on the ball.

Also, I would be careful in your thought that he ran the wrong way. It is far easier to get an angle on a fly ball if you're not under it.

[SH0102]

By rule, if the batter impedes or hinders the catchers attempt to field the ball, he has committed interference (other verbs too, but he didn’t confuse and didn’t make any other movements based on your description)

Many people (parents, coaches) think the batters box is a safe haven, but after a ball is batted, a batter is supposed to run to first, so standing in the box by definition making him MORE liable to commit interference.

id liken this to an R1 advancing to second with no knowledge of where the ball is, and interferes with F4. He didn’t mean to do it, but he still did it.

I can’t not protect the catcher because the batter thought it was further foul.

I am calling INT unless I judge that the catcher intentionally created the contact

(see the Reds and Indians run down between 3rd and Home where runner blasts fielder and gets awarded home on OBS)

[kylehutson]

So after I posted this, I realized this game was recorded, so I grabbed the video of this play.

Two notes:

1) Unlike what I remembered, the batter did move a little

2) The contact between the two was very brief, and didn't appear to alter the catcher's play on the ball

Here's the video: 

 

[SH0102]

This is a tough one now that I see the video.

Contact is not always Int/obs if both people are doing what they are supposed to do.

The thing that stood out to me is that the batter is looking up at the ball and seems to know where it is...

so it is possible he didn’t run bc he knew that would take him into the path of the where the fielder would be fielding the ball.

I’ve prob got nothing on this.  If defensive coach asks, I’d prob justify with the fact that the batter never interfered with the catchers proper path to field the ball.

If a ground ball is hit up the middle on 2nd base side, F4 is protected but that doesn’t mean he can run into R1 in a different line to the ball and get INT

[GreyhoundAggie]

I like your no call here on this one Kyle after seeing the video and where the ball ended up. The catcher took a bad path and initiated any contact and the ball was nowhere near the batter.

[Radie 88]

I was with @ShaunH on this one based on the description... but then flipped with him also after seeing the video.

The catcher definitely goes in the wrong direction. I think even if there was a huge collision, it would be hard to justify INT. 

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, ShaunH said:

 If defensive coach asks, I’d prob justify with the fact that the batter never interfered with the catchers proper path to field the ball.

Nobody asked. Nobody complained (even the catcher). I just want to be ready for the next time.

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, Radie 88 said:

I was with @ShaunH on this one based on the description... but then flipped with him also after seeing the video.

The catcher definitely goes in the wrong direction. I think even if there was a huge collision, it would be hard to justify INT. 

This is not relevant.

The catcher can go any direction he damn well pleases...just like any other fielder playing a batted ball who accidentally collides with a base runner...it's INT.   Unless you can determine the fielder did something accidentally on purpose to cause the collision the fielder's route to the ball is irrelevant...the runner is obliged to avoid the fielder.   The batter/runner is as well.

Yes, via fundamentals the catcher should know to go away from the batter on such a foul ball - just plain old physics - wind aside, a batted fly ball straight up from the batter is rarely going to end up behind the batter....one ump once told me he was taught to go to the side of the batter because he should expect the catcher to be going the other way.

Having said that - it's easier to pick up such a fly ball from the side, rather than straight beneath it.

Looking at the video, I don't see hindrance of any kind, but if, as you said, there was a huge collision, INT would be a really easy call to make and justify.

6 hours ago, ShaunH said:

Contact is not always Int/obs if both people are doing what they are supposed to do

This is also irrelevant.   And, besides, the batter wasn't doing what he was supposed to do...he's supposed to avoid hindering the catcher and gtf out of the way.  And to qualify for tangle/untangle the batter is supposed to be running to first, not standing around the plate admiring his foul ball.

As a coach, that batter is taking a seat or doing a few laps around the warning track post-game...that only landed a couple of feet foul and could have easily ended up a fair ball.  He is SUPPOSED to be running that out.

[aaluck]

On 3/29/2021 at 3:50 PM, kylehutson said:

In hindsight, I think I should have called the INT. Which is right?

I think your initial reaction was dead-on.  I have nothing there. Hard to see any real 'contact' in the video. I see a catcher trying to find the ball and running around the batter, out of confusion.  In fact I see the catcher moving to the left of the batter with the ball going to the right. Any movement the batter makes to the right to "get out of the way" will just cause INT.

Also, given the confusion I think your correct mechanics of eyes on the catcher (not trying to find the ball) worked well in this situation allowing you to actually see if there was INT. 

[maven]

Not big enough. If there's hindrance, it's not obvious or visible from this camera angle. Were I your supervisor and you had ruled batter INT on this play, I'd ask you to show me on the video how F2 was hindered.

[kylehutson]

14 hours ago, maven said:

Not big enough. If there's hindrance, it's not obvious or visible from this camera angle. Were I your supervisor and you had ruled batter INT on this play, I'd ask you to show me on the video how F2 was hindered.

The catcher did stumble (slightly) as he was going around the batter.

The mantra I've heard is that (with the exception of tangle/untangle, which doesn't apply here), contact on a batted ball is never "nothing". Was this, then, the exception that proves the rule?

[Senor Azul]

The mantra I've heard is that (with the exception of tangle/untangle, which doesn't apply here), contact on a batted ball is never "nothing".

That mantra has been posted here at U-E several times. I have tried to point out at least twice that we shouldn’t say “it’s always something” or “it’s never nothing.” Here’s why—there are two exceptions and both are in the rule books. You mentioned one—the other is when a runner and protected fielder contact during a fair or catchable batted ball, but the runner is touching his base when the contact occurs. Contact is considered incidental in both situations barring an intentional action by either the runner or fielder.

[beerguy55]

7 hours ago, kylehutson said:

The catcher did stumble (slightly) as he was going around the batter.

The mantra I've heard is that (with the exception of tangle/untangle, which doesn't apply here), contact on a batted ball is never "nothing". Was this, then, the exception that proves the rule?

I can't even say there was contact from the video...if he stumbled he may have just stumbled in changing direction to the ball...I don't think he went around the batter in a conscious effort to avoid him...I think he was looking up the whole time and had no awareness of the batter's nor your location...the lack of contact was just plain luck...the route he took was the route he took...six inches to his right and he would have tripped over the batter and you would have had an easy and obvious call to make.

[kylehutson]

13 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I can't even say there was contact from the video...if he stumbled he may have just stumbled in changing direction to the ball...I don't think he went around the batter in a conscious effort to avoid him...I think he was looking up the whole time and had no awareness of the batter's nor your location...the lack of contact was just plain luck...the route he took was the route he took...six inches to his right and he would have tripped over the batter and you would have had an easy and obvious call to make.

Having had a better point of view than the camera did, I can say definitively that there *was* some contact. And I'm also pretty sure he knew that the batter was right there. What he didn't know was where he wanted to go to make a play on the ball.

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, kylehutson said:

Having had a better point of view than the camera did, I can say definitively that there *was* some contact. And I'm also pretty sure he knew that the batter was right there. What he didn't know was where he wanted to go to make a play on the ball.

Well, it's been said many times here that hindrance doesn't need contact...I think it follows that contact doesn't necessarily mean hindrance.

I think the contact is not as important as what F2 had to do (or not) - if you determined that F2 had to go around the batter, or made any move to consciously avoid the batter, it's probably hindrance.  If you think he stumbled because of the batter, even though the contact was minor, that sounds like hindrance to me.  

Now, like you said, no one there complained...it's possible no one even really noticed, so that's as good a gauge as any...but I think you could still justify a INT call here, and be better for it in the long term.   It would serve as a reminder that you don't need a massive collision to have INT/OBS.

I run into too many umps that want contact (once had F5 hold up on a foul ball to avoid crashing into the ODB, who was not only not trying to get out of the way, but still swinging the bat - and ump said they didn't collide, so no INT.)

You're saying there was contact, AND the catcher stumbled as a result of it.

If you showed me only the video, with no commentary or context, I don't see hindrance.  Based on your account, description and color commentary, I hear hindrance.

[dntrllycare]

I like the no-call—not saying interference would be incorrect, but from the video it looks like the dirtier end of the stick. Only recommendation I’d have would be to stay on the line and not drift with the C there for the catch/no catch.

[The Man in Blue]

I'm a little late to this one, but I would have been extremely hard pressed to make any interference call ... but more importantly I think that call (and some of @beerguy55's logic) sets a very dangerous precedent of a catcher immediately running into the batter if he has no idea where the ball is (similar to efforts to force interference on throws to second/third base).

No, a fielder cannot run anywhere they please while fielding a ball.  They have to be making a play on the ball to be protected and I cannot fathom saying somebody running the wrong direction is making a play.  A fielder cannot run three feet forward and to their left and away from the ball to obstruct the runner and then try to make a diving play to claim they were playing the ball the whole time.

In this case it is a bit of an oddity as the fielder realizes the error and tries to correct, putting himself on a path to the ball ... but once he made that error, I cannot justify in my mind penalizing the batter for the catcher's mistake (unless there was some overtly obvious intentional action).