catcher's interference or foul ball

[BDad]

LL Majors rules. R2, 1 out. 1-0 on the batter.

1. Batter swings. Bat contacts the ball, which goes into the mitt, then pops out. After contacting the ball, the bat hits the catcher's mitt. I was PU and saw the bat hit the ball then the mitt. I ruled foul ball thinking the catcher touched the ball foul before the bat hit the mitt.

2. Same batter, 2 pitches later (3-1 count). Bat hit the ball then the catcher's mitt, and the ball went obviously foul to the fence between HP and 3B but did not touch the catcher. I ruled foul ball, sticking with the bat hit the ball before the mitt.

Were these calls correct? I know if the ball is put in play I have delayed dead ball and the play stands if the batter reaches 1B and all other runners advance at least one base. What happens with a foul ball?

[Velho]

If the catcher interfered with the batter, he interfered with the batter and penalties apply. Foul, fair, missed, caught, etc doesn't make a difference.

I'm having difficulty picturing the bat hitting the ball before the mitt. Was the batter chopping down and the catcher had his mitt well into the strike zone?

 

[BDad]

  

20 minutes ago, Velho said:

I'm having difficulty picturing the bat hitting the ball before the mitt. Was the batter chopping down and the catcher had his mitt well into the strike zone?

 

Batter's swing was late and catcher was reaching forward on the outside part of the plate. I'm sure it's what I saw, but in hindsight I was thinking what you said. Bat hits the mitt it's INT no matter what.

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, BDad said:

Batter's swing was late and catcher was reaching forward on the outside part of the plate.

Reminds me of the below

 

[BDad]

Hmm, that one seems pretty clear INT. I imagine the bat could have it the pitch had it not hit the back of the catcher's mitt first. Now switch to LL skill level. LH batter. RH F2 reaches forward to outside of plate, pitch comes inside half, swing is late bat hits the ball then the pocket of the catcher's mitt.

[Catch18]

I’m having a hard time picturing hitting the ball first then the catchers mitt, unless…..are you saying it was the follow-through that hit the catcher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDad]

No, it was on the forward swing. LH batter, RH catcher, so basically the batter's swing was into the left (glove) hand of the catcher. The ball hit the bat before the bat hit the glove.

[ErichKeane]

One question I might have: when does the "swing end" and "follow through" start? One might argue this is possible batters interference with the catcher, and that the "swing" becomes "follow through" once the ball is struck.

[Senor Azul]

2019 LL rule 6.08 - The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided said runner advances to and touches first base) when –

(c) the catcher or any fielder interferes with the batter. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire of a decision to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference;

From the 2019 Little League publication Make the Right Call (the LL case book):

6.08(c) SITUATION:  Anne is batting for the Mets in the 5^th inning. With a 2-1 count she swings at the next pitch and makes contact with both the ball and the catcher’s mitt; the ball rolls toward the 3^rd baseman in fair territory. The 3^rd baseman fields the ball and throws to first to retire Anne.

RULING:  The umpire should rule interference on the catcher and award Anne 1^st base. Had Anne reached 1^st base safely and any other runners advanced at least one base safely the interference should be identified but not enforced. It is also important to remember that the offense has the ability to refuse the award and accept the outcome of the play if it is to their benefit. This is a “delayed dead ball” situation and the umpires should allow all play to continue until no further action is possible before making any award.

[Senor Azul]

The batter has the absolute right to the pitch and the catcher cannot take that away from him. It is catcher’s interference when the catcher is on or forward of the tip of the plate (in other words he is in fair territory) to get the pitch. By doing so he prevents the batter’s opportunity to swing at or bunt the pitch.

FED case book (yes, I know this question is about LL) play 7.3.5F sums it up pretty well by saying, “A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball.” FED case book play 8.1.1F helps to clarify by stating that the catcher “may not catch the pitch until it has passed home plate.”

In addition to the interference it is a huge safety hazard for the catcher to be where the bat can hit him.

[Replacematt]

I think there's a gap in the rules here as to if it's BI or not, but this is definitely not CI.

The batter has already struck the ball and there's nothing that can hinder their attempt after that point.

[BDad]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of this at all as batter's interference. @Senor Azul I'm curious as I think about this more, you seem to be suggesting that the batter has absolute right to the pitch, so I might interpret that to mean that I might rule that I can't tell what the ball might have done off the bat had the bat not hit the catcher's mitt, therefore I should rule for catcher's interference and make the appropriate award. I'm not sure I could tell if the catcher was forward of the tip of home plate, but I might give benefit of doubt to the batter in that case. Is that how you see it?

@Matt I was thinking along the lines of what you're suggesting--once the batter struck at (and hit) the ball, hitting the catcher's mitt doesn't matter. What makes me pause is wondering whether the foul ball would have happened whether or not the bat hit the mitt. I.e., could the ball have been fair had the bat not hit the mitt. In this situation, I would say the ball would have been foul in either case. But is this a judgment call, or should it be CI regardless?

[Senor Azul]

OBR mentions catcher interference (CI) in at least three rules [5.05(b)(3), 6.01(c), and 6.01(g)] and in one definition (the term interference) and all are pretty vague in describing the act. There is really nothing about the term follow through/backswing. The following is from the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (Chapter 14, p. 122): 

It is defensive interference (better known as “catcher’s interference”) if…The catcher contacts the batter or his bat during a swing or bunt at a pitch.

Mr. BDad, I recommend you visit the Close Call Sports site and search the term catcher’s interference. You will find several analyses of actual occurrences in the Majors. You will see things like a CI called on a check swing and on a pitch that was actually already in the catcher’s mitt when the batter’s bat struck the mitt (I think that one involved Kershaw and a San Diego player).

The common factor in all the cases is the catcher making contact with the bat—all rule sets tell us that is not allowed. Besides, I gave you a real case play from Little League where the batter made contact with the ball and the mitt and CI is the proper call. (Did you read it?) Please note that they did not qualify it by stating the sequence of the contact was important.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, BDad said:

Interesting, I hadn't thought of this at all as batter's interference. @Senor Azul I'm curious as I think about this more, you seem to be suggesting that the batter has absolute right to the pitch, so I might interpret that to mean that I might rule that I can't tell what the ball might have done off the bat had the bat not hit the catcher's mitt, therefore I should rule for catcher's interference and make the appropriate award. I'm not sure I could tell if the catcher was forward of the tip of home plate, but I might give benefit of doubt to the batter in that case. Is that how you see it?

@Matt I was thinking along the lines of what you're suggesting--once the batter struck at (and hit) the ball, hitting the catcher's mitt doesn't matter. What makes me pause is wondering whether the foul ball would have happened whether or not the bat hit the mitt. I.e., could the ball have been fair had the bat not hit the mitt. In this situation, I would say the ball would have been foul in either case. But is this a judgment call, or should it be CI regardless?

So, the Wendlestedt RIM (in the definition section of interference) defines it as an act that hinders or prevents the batter from hitting the pitch. Thus, my take on it--if the batter hit the pitch with no hindrance, it doesn't meet that definition.

Likewise, if a batter does something that affects a catcher after their throw, it's not BI, as the play wasn't hindered.

[Senor Azul]

Until you give us a proper citation I cannot find in my 2013 copy of the Wendelstedt manual the definition you cite. But here is what I did find (WRIM section 8.1.1, p. 131):

A batter becomes a runner and is entitled to advance to first base without liability of being put out when:  The catcher touches the batter or his bat during the hitter’s swing, or steps on or in front of the plate and prevents the batter from being able to swing at a pitch. (6.08c)

And then on the very next page he gives us a historical note about the rule:

The catcher’s interference rule was not officially put into place until the 1920 season. Until this point, the “catcher’s interference” rule specified that a catcher could not prevent a batter from swinging at a pitch with runners attempting to score. This allowed a catcher to tip the bat of a hitter during his swing, with no penalty from the umpire…

So the current rule is actually designed to keep the catcher from reaching out and touching the bat.