Bat contacts mitt while pulling back.

[Richvee]

R1 Batter squares to bunt, or checks his swing. As the ball crossed the plate, batter pulls back, or after the check swing, the recoil hits the catcher’s mitt. 

My question is do we have CI or backswing/ follow though if r1’s running, or nothing if r1 is not moving? 

[SH0102]

Well, CI requires the catcher to interfere with the batters ability to strike at the pitch, so you can rule that out.

Also, in HS follow through is treated the same as “regular” BI (unlike NCAA and OBR), so in HS, I’d *likely* have BI

As for INT or nothing, guess it’s a have to be there. If batter INT with catchers ability to make a play, it’s INT, if not, it’s nothing, which is judgment.

[JHumbert15]

39 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Well, CI requires the catcher to interfere with the batters ability to strike at the pitch, so you can rule that out.

Also, in HS follow through is treated the same as “regular” BI (unlike NCAA and OBR), so in HS, I’d *likely* have BI

As for INT or nothing, guess it’s a have to be there. If batter INT with catchers ability to make a play, it’s INT, if not, it’s nothing, which is judgment.

Boom.

 

Agreed for NCAA and FED. Nothing if R1 stays put, and potential INT depending on it's serverity if he goes (NCAA and FED - same for me).

I don't think you could get follow through INT here as there is no "normal follow through" (as the NCAA book says), on a bunt or check swing, so I am ruling that out, unless there is another interp for that somehwere. You could try to make an argument for the "normal follow through" of a bunt to be pulling back, or pulling back on a check swing, but I don't buy that personally.

[Richvee]

I’m with  you guys on BI if R1’s going, nothing if he isn’t. 
On social media , I’m getting pushback on this from  knowledgeable people saying CI, and I just can’t grasp their logic. Their argument is something along the lines of, the batter has the right at an unobstructed chance to hit the ball,  and,  on the pulled back bunt or check swing, they still have the opportunity to swing. I’m not buying it and looking for support,  or if I’m totally wrong. 
 

Just to be clear. I’m not talking about pulling back a bunt attempt during the delivery, commonly known as slashing. I can see CI there. I’m talking about pulling back as the pitch crosses the plate. 

[Tborze]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’m with  you guys on BI if R1’s going, nothing if he isn’t. 
On social media , I’m getting pushback on this from  knowledgeable people saying CI, and I just can’t grasp their logic. Their argument is something along the lines of, the batter has the right at an unobstructed chance to hit the ball,  and,  on the pulled back bunt or check swing, they still have the opportunity to swing. I’m not buying it and looking for support,  or if I’m totally wrong. 
 

Just to be clear. I’m not talking about pulling back a bunt attempt during the delivery, commonly known as slashing. I can see CI there. I’m talking about pulling back as the pitch crosses the plate. 

In MLB last year, CI was called on a catcher after he caught the pitch.  The reasoning was as stated above. 
F2 needs to keep his mitt out of the zone. 

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

On social media , I’m getting pushback on this from  knowledgeable people saying CI, and I just can’t grasp their logic. Their argument is something along the lines of, the batter has the right at an unobstructed chance to hit the ball,  and,  on the pulled back bunt or check swing, they still have the opportunity to swing. I’m not buying it and looking for support,  or if I’m totally wrong. 

I don't think it's wrong, per se.  If the pitch is still en route the batter, technically, can still try to hit the ball.  (it may be impractical, but it's not wrong)

Think of a fake bunt to slap (yes, I know, more common in softball, but not non-existent in baseball)...batter squares, pulls bat back in an attempt to slap ball past moving infielders, clips F2's mitt as the bat moves backwards, which in turn would affect their ability to move the bat forward again.

I can buy it...it's still a pitch...and if it's still a pitch the batter can still strike at it.   The batter can start his swing, stop it, and start it again.  If he can change his mind, he can change his mind again.

[Richvee]

4 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't think it's wrong, per se.  If the pitch is still en route the batter, technically, can still try to hit the ball.  (it may be impractical, but it's not wrong)

Think of a fake bunt to slap (yes, I know, more common in softball, but not non-existent in baseball)...batter squares, pulls bat back in an attempt to slap ball past moving infielders, clips F2's mitt as the bat moves backwards, which in turn would affect their ability to move the bat forward again.

I can buy it...it's still a pitch...and if it's still a pitch the batter can still strike at it.

100% in agreement. Maybe that’s the disconnect in trying to answer this question. People are thinking about it that way. 
That's why I used the check swing example. Check and the contact on the “recoil” for lack of a better word. I can’t see grabbing CI on this. Others are saying @doesnt matter, check swing, bunt, whatever, always CI. I’m having trouble getting behind that logic 

[Velho]

15 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Check and the contact on the “recoil” for lack of a better word. I can’t see grabbing CI on this. Others are saying @doesnt matter, check swing, bunt, whatever, always CI. I’m having trouble getting behind that logic 

I'm with you. What did the catcher prevent the batter from doing? Batter intended not to strike at the ball.

[Richvee]

12 minutes ago, Velho said:

I'm with you. What did the catcher prevent the batter from doing? Batter intended not to strike at the ball.

Exactly. Or put another way , he finished his attempt at swinging at the pitch. 

[JHumbert15]

I don’t see how you have CI on this, assuming I’m understanding the question. CI only comes into play if the “catcher hinders the batter’s opportunity to strike the ball”. Do we all agree there? 
 

If yes, then let me make sure I understand this. If I check my swing, or have my bat out across the plate, and when I squared to bunt or originally swing, there was no contact with F2, then there’s nothing. THEN, when I decide not to bunt, or pull back the bat after my check, I hit his glove. This is what you’re saying? I can’t see how anyone could call that CI because he hasn’t hindered the batter’s opportunity to hit the ball- the ball is already in the catcher’s mitt and they make contact when he pulls the bat back.

 

4 hours ago, Tborze said:

In MLB last year, CI was called on a catcher after he caught the pitch.  The reasoning was as stated above. 
F2 needs to keep his mitt out of the zone. 

Kinda. Your example is different, because the batter hit the catcher’s mitt on his initial downswing- NOT when he pulled back. This is just a normal CI play. As I understand, the OP is asking something different. 

[Richvee]

23 minutes ago, JHumbert15 said:

 

I don’t see how you have CI on this, assuming I’m understanding the question. CI only comes into play if the “catcher hinders the batter’s attempt to strike the ball”. Do we all agree there? 
 

If yes, then let me make sure I understand this. If I check my swing, or have my bat out across the plate, and when I squared to bunt or originally swing, there was no contact with F2, then there’s nothing. THEN, when I decide not to bunt, or pull back the bat after my check, I hit his glove. This is what you’re saying? I can’t see how anyone could call that CI because he hasn’t hindered the batter’s ability to hit the ball- the ball is already in the catcher’s mitt and they make contact when he pulls the bat back

 

Exactly what I’m saying and I agree. Thank you. 

[Mudisfun]

14 hours ago, Richvee said:

On social media ,

I found the problem as to why your are getting pushback...

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

I'm with you. What did the catcher prevent the batter from doing? Batter intended not to strike at the ball.

The batter is allowed to change his mind...that's what a check swing is.  The batter ALWAYS starts his swing...then he changes his mind...if the pitch is still on the way he can change his mind again.   Or, like my original example - fake bunt to slap/swing.  CI is about preventing a batter's OPPORTUNITY to swing...not necessarily impacting an actual swing...just a potential swing.

Think the same way on R3 stealing...99% of the time the batter just ain't swinging (assuming he knows it's coming)...but if he's in the box and F2 steps up in front of the plate to receive the pitch, it's CI.  The exception though (apparently) is if the batter very obviously steps back out of the box to clear the path for the runner, he's given up his right to swing.

You could make similar judgment on a check swing I suppose, but IMO, if the batter's still in a legal position in the box he was a right to strike at the pitch - even if he has pulled his bunt back, or checked his swing.

I'll give you an extreme example if this, that has actually happened.  In the 80's Pascual Perez would throw the occasion eephus pitch...and also had a 90+ mph fastball.  So it was very common to see a batter start a swing, and then pull his bat all the way back to original stance, and then pull the trigger again.

 

[Tborze]

59 minutes ago, JHumbert15 said:

I don’t see how you have CI on this, assuming I’m understanding the question. CI only comes into play if the “catcher hinders the batter’s attempt to strike the ball”. Do we all agree there? 
 

If yes, then let me make sure I understand this. If I check my swing, or have my bat out across the plate, and when I squared to bunt or originally swing, there was no contact with F2, then there’s nothing. THEN, when I decide not to bunt, or pull back the bat after my check, I hit his glove. This is what you’re saying? I can’t see how anyone could call that CI because he hasn’t hindered the batter’s ability to hit the ball- the ball is already in the catcher’s mitt and they make contact when he pulls the bat back.

 

Kinda. Your example is different, because the batter hit the catcher’s mitt on his initial downswing- NOT when he pulled back. This is just a normal CI play. As I understand, the OP is asking something different. 

If the batter doesn’t attempt to hit the pitch can you still have CI/CO?  If yes, than how can you not have CI/CO when contact with F2 occurs?  
Pulling the bat back does not end the batters attempt to hit the pitch.  

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, JHumbert15 said:

I don’t see how you have CI on this, assuming I’m understanding the question. CI only comes into play if the “catcher hinders the batter’s attempt to strike the ball”. Do we all agree there? 

No, CI hinders the batter's OPPORTUNITY to strike at the ball...there's a difference.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

I found the problem as to why your are getting pushback...

But this is from two guys I respect. That’s why I came here. 

[JHumbert15]

41 minutes ago, Tborze said:

If the batter doesn’t attempt to hit the pitch can you still have CI/CO?  If yes, than how can you not have CI/CO when contact with F2 occurs?  
Pulling the bat back does not end the batters attempt to hit the pitch.  

 

1- Yes, again, if he hinders the batter's opportunity to hit the ball. Think of him stepping in fron of HP to receive the pitch and try to throw a runner out, that's CI.

2- you're right that it doesn't end his attempt to hit the pitch, but again, in the OP, the ball has passed HP EDIT: okay, it's "over the plate", but I'm treating ti the same, because it's literally just not possible to pull back and swing when the pitch is already over the plate and is in the catcher's glove. There's no way you can have an opportunity to hit the ball *after* it is caught, so again, I don't think you can make the argument that pulling a bat back which contacts F2's glove is CI. If you are talking about slashing, then I could buy your argument, but on a standard bunt or check swing pull back, that all happens so fast (and if you're pulling back you're deciding not to hit the pitch, unless you're slashing, in which case you would pull back much sooner) so I can't have CI. Same thing with a check swing- you've decided not to hit the ball. You check your swing and the pitch is caught. You pull back. Contact F2's glove. There's no opportunity to hit the ball. No CI. Slashing is the only case I envisioon where you could *potentially* have CI on a pull back.

[Tborze]

2 minutes ago, JHumbert15 said:

1- Yes, again, if he hinders the batter's opportunity to hit the ball. Think of him stepping in fron of HP to receive the pitch and try to throw a runner out, that's CI.

2- you're right that it doesn't end his attempt to hit the pitch, but again, in the OP, the ball has passed HP and is in the catcher's glove. There's no way you can have an opportunity to hit the ball *after* it is caught, so again, I don't think you can make the argument that pulling a bat back which contacts F2's glove is CI. If you are talking about slashing, then I could buy your argument, but on a standard bunt or check swing pull back, that all happens so fast (and if you're pulling back you're deciding not to hit the pitch, unless you're slashing, in which case you would pull back much sooner) so I can't have CI. Same thing with a check swing- you've decided not to hit the ball. You check your swing and the pitch is caught. You pull back. There's no opportunity to hit the ball. No CI. Slashing is the only case I envisioon where you could *potentially* have CI on a pull back.

Sorry, didn’t see where the OP said it was in the catchers glove. 
I thought the ball was crossing the plate. 

[SH0102]

The time it takes for pitch to travel is minuscule, no chance a batter can swing, stop, pull back, and swing again in a “legit” attempt.

that said, I can get on board with beer guys example, but this is where judgment comes in timing. If ball is crossing the plate and they are just now pulling back, they don’t have time to slap it.

But the CI I can envision would be when pitch is halfway or so, and then yes, the bunt to slap hit is relevant and CI could happen

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, JHumbert15 said:

2- you're right that it doesn't end his attempt to hit the pitch, but again, in the OP, the ball has passed HP and is in the catcher's glove.

Nope - the OP says the ball is crossing the plate...it's the bat that hits the glove, not the ball.

If you can have CI on a ball that has crossed the plate and is already in the catcher's glove, you can have CI in the OP.

[JHumbert15]

22 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Sorry, didn’t see where the OP said it was in the catchers glove. 
I thought the ball was crossing the plate. 

 

20 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Nope - the OP says the ball is crossing the plate...it's the bat that hits the glove, not the ball.

If you can have CI on a ball that has crossed the plate and is already in the catcher's glove, you can have CI in the OP.

Well, yes, it is crossing the plate, which is a fraction of a second from being caught, so you can't pull back and swing, there's just not enough time. You have me on semantics, but I don't chnage my answer that you have CI here.

To the bold: A slash is different. That's for a slash. If this isn't a slash in OP, I see no way you can have CI here becuase it's literally just not possible to pull back and swing when the pitch is already over the plate (unless you're slashing).

[beerguy55]

4 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

The time it takes for pitch to travel is minuscule, no chance a batter can swing, stop, pull back, and swing again in a “legit” attempt.

that said, I can get on board with beer guys example, but this is where judgment comes in timing. If ball is crossing the plate and they are just now pulling back, they don’t have time to slap it.

But the CI I can envision would be when pitch is halfway or so, and then yes, the bunt to slap hit is relevant and CI could happen

And then this is where we get into being practical, and how much you want to manage the game and semantical discussions.

Do you really want to get into the conversation, with a coach, to whether or not the batter had (or did not have) an opportunity to swing because the pitch was halfway there instead of 90% of the way there?

If the batter is still in a legal position, and the pitch is still a pitch, then the batter can be interfered with - it's simply easier.

[Tborze]

I’ve already pointed out there can still be CI even though the pitch had ended. I’m assuming now that the catcher or his mitt was in the zone, not some extended swing after the pitch was caught.  And, if it’s still in the zone, the batter has to be given an unhindered opportunity to attempt to hit it. 
I have CI on the OP. 

[SH0102]

14 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

And then this is where we get into being practical, and how much you want to manage the game and semantical discussions.

Do you really want to get into the conversation, with a coach, to whether or not the batter had (or did not have) an opportunity to swing because the pitch was halfway there instead of 90% of the way there?

If the batter is still in a legal position, and the pitch is still a pitch, then the batter can be interfered with - it's simply easier.

I don’t worry about what I have to say at coaches.  All INT, whether it’s batter or CI, is judgment.

To get CI, I have to judge that the catch prevented the batter from the opportunity to strike at the pitch.

If the ball is already at the plate where catcher is catching it and batter is pulling his bat back, the catcher didn’t impede a swing.

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

I don’t worry about what I have to say at coaches.  All INT, whether it’s batter or CI, is judgment.

To get CI, I have to judge that the catch prevented the batter from the opportunity to strike at the pitch.

If the ball is already at the plate where catcher is catching it and batter is pulling his bat back, the catcher didn’t impede a swing.

Your prerogative - I think you're picking up the SH*#ty end of the stick.

Interesting to me - the language in OBR says this about CI - "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with him"

If we want to get really semantical, the strict wording above would indicate that the catcher can interfere with the batter's attempt to pull back his swing....or even to reposition himself in the box.  The rule doesn't specify what action is being interfered, just that it's the batter's action.

[Tborze]

37 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

I don’t worry about what I have to say at coaches.  All INT, whether it’s batter or CI, is judgment.

To get CI, I have to judge that the catch prevented the batter from the opportunity to strike at the pitch.

If the ball is already at the plate where catcher is catching it and batter is pulling his bat back, the catcher didn’t impede a swing.

You are correct. He did not impede his swing!  
He impeded his unhindered opportunity to do so!
 

In FED, just having the mitt over the plate during the pitch is CO.