Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kershaw and Profar chat about catchers interference, a breakdown - YouTube

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

@Gil might cover this. I don't know if you can judge an intentional effort to hit the glove by Profar which would not be CI by certain interps but Profar was not prevented from hitting the pitch. He was in the back of the box and the pitch had passed HP when it was caught. I can see the call if F2 caught it it over HP and his glove was hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is it? Seems like garden-variety catcher INT to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If the batter's in the box he's entitled to an unhindered opportunity to hit the pitch. That includes pro hitter's efforts to foul of

Rule 2-28 ART. 4 . . . A pitch ends when the pitched ball: a. is secured by the catcher, b. comes to rest, c. goes out of play, d. becomes dead, e. or the batter hits the ball

Here at U-E the most used definition of when a pitch ends is the FED definition found in its rule 2-28-4-- 2019 FED rule 2-28-4 A pitch ends when the pitched ball: a. Is secured by the

4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Interesting play.

Is it? Seems like garden-variety catcher INT to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the batter's in the box he's entitled to an unhindered opportunity to hit the pitch. That includes pro hitter's efforts to foul off a "pitcher's pitch," even if they're quite late on it.

IMO he was clearly close enough to hitting the pitch to be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maven said:

Is it? Seems like garden-variety catcher INT to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the batter's in the box he's entitled to an unhindered opportunity to hit the pitch. That includes pro hitter's efforts to foul off a "pitcher's pitch," even if they're quite late on it.

IMO he was clearly close enough to hitting the pitch to be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I think it's a good clip to support another version of CI....even less traditional swings like this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, maven said:

Is it? Seems like garden-variety catcher INT to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the batter's in the box he's entitled to an unhindered opportunity to hit the pitch. That includes pro hitter's efforts to foul off a "pitcher's pitch," even if they're quite late on it.

IMO he was clearly close enough to hitting the pitch to be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

What benefit of doubt exists? Is there a point where this would not be CI? In real time we all would call it if we heard or saw it even with the ball in the glove unless you had the ability to percieve a late swing with intent to get CI which I don't think Profar had. Hallion didn't hear it. But does the video review apply the rule definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2016 BRD (section 283, p. 184):

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If a batter attempts to create catcher’s interference by intentionally directing his swing toward the catcher, no catcher’s interference should be called. However, if such intentional actions interfere with the catcher’s ability to make a play on a runner, interference should be called on the batter, or if for the third strike, on the batter who has just been put out (when the runner is out). (e-mail to Childress, 7/13/12)

Additionally, the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 122) says it is not catcher's interference if the batter tries to hit the catcher versus hitting the pitch. Here's a sample play from their manual: R3, stealing. The batter takes two or three steps backward during the pitch. Catcher's interference is no longer possible. The NCAA actually has incorporated this into its rules (current rule 7-4h).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to have a run on these lately. Heck... TMac just had a video on this a day or three BEFORE the above video.

Its almost like someone found a hidden cheat code. And now everyone wants to use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered about a batter  trying to intentionally  hit the catcher trying to buy a CI call.  To be honest nothing covers it in the rules, when the bases are empty or no one is stealing . The Wendelstadt &  J&K  are not rules just an  opinion.  I would not ever award 1st in this situation.  I would use  8.01c   if challenged   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 6:21 PM, Jimurray said:

Kershaw and Profar chat about catchers interference, a breakdown - YouTube

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

@Gil might cover this. I don't know if you can judge an intentional effort to hit the glove by Profar which would not be CI by certain interps but Profar was not prevented from hitting the pitch. He was in the back of the box and the pitch had passed HP when it was caught. I can see the call if F2 caught it it over HP and his glove was hit.

Thanks for the heads up on this Jim. I should have something up tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jms1425 said:

When is a pitched ball no longer a pitched ball?

Rule 2-28 ART. 4 . . . A pitch ends when the pitched ball:

a. is secured by the catcher,

b. comes to rest,

c. goes out of play,

d. becomes dead,

e. or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip).

~Dawg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here at U-E the most used definition of when a pitch ends is the FED definition found in its rule 2-28-4--

2019 FED rule 2-28-4

A pitch ends when the pitched ball:

a. Is secured by the catcher;

b. comes to rest;

c. goes out of play;

d. becomes dead; or

e. the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip).

The NCAA covers this question in its rule 8-3o-4 Note 1 and the OBR has just an official interpretation.

NCAA: A pitch not secured by the catcher but remaining in the playing area ends when it stops rolling.

OBR:  Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  The pitch ends when the ball delivered by the pitcher is either caught by the catcher, is hit by the batter, touches the batter before being deflected, or goes (or would have gone) out of play on its own or its deflected momentum. (2013 WRIM, p. 8)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

OBR:  Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  The pitch ends when the ball delivered by the pitcher is either caught by the catcher, is hit by the batter, touches the batter before being deflected, or goes (or would have gone) out of play on its own or its deflected momentum. (2013 WRIM, p. 😎

Well, if this is the interpretation, I don't see how this is CI. How can a catcher hinder a batter's opportunity to hit a pitch if the pitch itself has ended?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/20/2021 at 7:34 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Rule 2-28 ART. 4 . . . A pitch ends when the pitched ball:

a. is secured by the catcher,

b. comes to rest,

c. goes out of play,

d. becomes dead,

e. or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip).

~Dawg

I tried to show a team how many rules I knew one time when I called a ball after the pitch was secured by the catcher and the batter swung to try to protect his runner that still got thrown out. 

That was dumb. Just signal a strike on the swing. Everybody in the stadium expects it to be a strike. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I tried to show a team how many rules I knew one time when I called a ball after the pitch was secured by the catcher and the batter swung to try to protect his runner that still got thrown out. 

That was dumb. Just signal a strike on the swing. Everybody in the stadium expects it to be a strike. 

Do we want to start a thread about how many rules we've shown off?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 5:34 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Rule 2-28 ART. 4 . . . A pitch ends when the pitched ball:

a. is secured by the catcher,

b. comes to rest,

c. goes out of play,

d. becomes dead,

e. or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip).

~Dawg

This is missing something. If we take it verbatim and sacrosanct, then a pitch in the dirt that ricochets off the catcher first, then caroms or rolls to touch the batter should be a HBP and the ball should be(come) dead. 

Right? Read the citation again. According to the vernacular of this section, a coach/manager/batter has a case for HBP if that spiked pitch bounces off the catcher’s CP and subsequently hits (touches) the batter’s helmet, or shoulder, or foot... 

I mean, according to the Rules, it’s still a pitch! The catcher hasn’t secured it! 
 

 

———

I know full well it ain’t a HBP... I’m just pointing out the potential restrictiveness of taking the Rules literally and verbatim. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MadMax said:

This is missing something. If we take it verbatim and sacrosanct, then a pitch in the dirt that ricochets off the catcher first, then caroms or rolls to touch the batter should be a HBP and the ball should be(come) dead. 

Right? Read the citation again. According to the vernacular of this section, a coach/manager/batter has a case for HBP if that spiked pitch bounces off the catcher’s CP and subsequently hits (touches) the batter’s helmet, or shoulder, or foot... 

I mean, according to the Rules, it’s still a pitch! The catcher hasn’t secured it! 
 

 

———

I know full well it ain’t a HBP... I’m just pointing out the potential restrictiveness of taking the Rules literally and verbatim. 

A couple of responses to this (which was first pointed out to me about 20 years ago on some interwebs site):

1) In FED, a batter isn't awarded first when he's hit by a pitch, he's awarded first when he's hit by a pitched ball.  The definition says when the pitch ends; it doesn't say when a "pitched ball" ends. There are other instances where the difference matters.

2) It's just an example of what good officials know -- the rules don't always say exactly what they mean or mean exactly what they say.  (Or, put another way, the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen; not by lawyers for lawyers.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, noumpere said:

1) In FED, a batter isn't awarded first when he's hit by a pitch, he's awarded first when he's hit by a pitched ball.  The definition says when the pitch ends; it doesn't say when a "pitched ball" ends. There are other instances where the difference matters.

So...umpires all over the country are missing HBPs every day because of how expansive the definition is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

So...umpires all over the country are missing HBPs every day because of how expansive the definition is.

No -- umpires are  correctly calling this based on the rules.  If only one of the rules is read and applied, the call might be made incorrectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, noumpere said:

It's just an example of what good officials know -- the rules don't always say exactly what they mean or mean exactly what they say.  (Or, put another way, the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen; not by lawyers for lawyers.)

Hence why Rule Citations posted without context, explanation, or interpretation don’t necessarily “solve the problem”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered about a batter  trying to intentionally  hit the catcher trying to buy a CI call.  To be honest nothing covers it in the rules, when the bases are empty or no one is stealing . The Wendelstadt &  J&K  are not rules just an  opinion.  I would not ever award 1st in this situation.  I would use  8.01c   if challenged  

Actually, the 2019-2020 NCAA rule 7-4h which I mentioned in an earlier post does codify what the pro interpretations from Wendelstedt and J/R state.

A Strike

SECTION 4. A strike is:

h. Awarded if the batter deliberately steps back in the box or swings in such a manner to attempt to create catcher’s interference. If the swing hits the catcher or the mitt, the batter shall be called out. All base runners shall return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...