Catchers Interference ?

[carolinablue]

I had an issue with catchers interfernce a couple of times this season and thought I would run it by you guys to see what you think.

I had a LL senior game ( 15, 16 YO ) batter swings at ball late and gets a piece of it but was awful close to mitt. Basicly bat, mitt, and ball were all there at same time. I heard and saw the foul and also heard another sound but didn't see anything but could of been bat hitting mitt. Oc complained but I called foul ball and that was it.

LL major game, I had a similar situation. Batter swing at ball, no foul this time and catcher misses ball but I did hear a little thud but saw nothing. I thought it was just the ball glancing of the mitt. OC complains but I call strike.

There is no rule that says if the ball hits the mitt it is CI that I know of, but it does say if catcher or any fielder interferes with the batters swing. So is the bat just nipping the cathers glove enough to constitute CI and how often do you guys encounter this and how do you handle it if you are not sure ?

[MCLEOD36]

Had a game this weekend, where catcher literally set up almost on the plate, I stepped back got in the slot and just made sure no contact was made. I think it comes down to positioning, if both are very close, then look for it and if interuption of the swing, call it. The little thud does sound different, then a foul ball, as does a catcher getting up and holding his hand, ha ha. Remember too, the interference thud will be before the catcher does catch the ball or foul tip or foul ball.

[noumpere]

So is the bat just nipping the cathers glove enough to constitute CI

Yes, that's enough.

and how often do you guys encounter this and how do you handle it if you are not sure ?

It's one of the toughest calls because it doesn't happen that often, and it happens very fast.

Now that you've possibly missed it a couple of times, you'll be ready for it. You can always make a "late" call of it if you replay it in your mind and recognize that it should be interference. Do this BEFORE the offensive coach complains, though.

[Umpire in Chief]

It is a tough call. Close= nothing. Sometimes you have to rely on sound.

[mstaylor]

If you have an additional sound it's probably CI. Just remember you also have to have contact with the ball. No contact, no CI. Also remember it is a live ball and then an option for the manager when it is done.

[blindumpire99]

Yes as Warren indicated, the mitt/batt/ball collision is one scenario where you are going to be relying on your sense of hearing to make this call probably 89 - 90% of the time...

You are going to have to determine what sound that you heard FIRST--was it a slight ding or maybe a metallic click, indicating ball and bat or was it a sometimes sharp sliding sound if the bat is sliding along the webbing stiching of the mitt followed by the ding? Maybe a dull thud followed by the ding??

Of course, when it's bad enough, your catcher in front of you probably won't be able to contain his pain and that will let you know what happened.:BD:

[widac]

Just remember you also have to have contact with the ball. No contact, no CI.

I don't think this is correct.

[Astrosdawg07]

. Just remember you also have to have contact with the ball. No contact, no CI.

False...

[Mr Umpire]

You only have to have contact with the catcher while swinging at a pitch. Hitting the ball is not required. If the batter hits the back of the catcher's glove and the ball hits the front of it, how can the batter hit the ball too? Contact with the catcher is the only thing required for CI.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Mr Umpire

[batterup]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

[Mr Umpire]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

I am watching the pitch as it comes in. The swing starts before the pitch gets to the plate.

There are many things that happen where we hear it but don't see it. There is no way to see a foul tip on an 80 mph fastball if the ball does not change direction. We hear it hit the bat. You cannot see a pitch hit a batter if the ball disappears under his arms and uniform as he is trying to move. But, you can hear it hit something before you see it get to the catcher's glove.

So, no coach has an argument if an umpire says he heard something. As BU, we are taught to see the foot hit the bag but hear the ball hit the glove. So, I can hear a little "tick" sound of the bat clipping just the edge of the glove before I see it hit the ball.

In short, no coach will "have a field day" if he is told the umpire heard the bat hit the catcher's glove.

[BrianC14]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

If you're not using your hearing when you umpire games, then I would suggest you've missed some important plays.

Example 1: You're the base umpire. A banger at first base. The ball is up high, causing F3 to stretch for it, but his foot stays on the bag.

You SEE the B/R's foot, and you SEE F3's foot... and you're telling me you also SEE the ball into the mitt?

Example 2: You're the plate umpire. A pitch comes in low, but the batter tries to golf it. F2 reaches down to block it, and in doing so, it blocks your view of the ball. The bat just tips the ball, driving it into the dirt, and then the ball bounces up into the mitt. Are you telling me you SAW that foul ball? (Or - - was it a foul tip?... )

TICK - Whump - WHACK. I'm hearing that. Foul ball!

It's no different with the bat hitting the mitt. You may not be ABLE to see it - so LISTEN.

[Umpire in Chief]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

It happens so quick and sometimes you can't tell if the batter is swinging just over the glove or what have you. This is actually a tough call the majority of the time and often made on the sound. Excuse my poor onomatopoeia, but for CI you'll hear something from a light 'thht' to a hard 'thap.' With aluminum bats it can often be easier because there may be a slight metallic ring to it. If you have the 'thht'-crack/ping then you've got CI, and may not have even seen it. Wood bats can be even harder b/c there won't be any metallic sounds.

I had a wood bat game over the summer and thought I had CI but did not call it. The ball was hit for a base hit. I just asked the catcher, "Not that it matters now but did the bat hit you glove?"

He said, "I was hoping you didn't notice that."

I told him, "I didn't see it but I thought I heard it."

Sound is probably the second most important sense for an umpire. And knowing how to use it well will make the difference between a good umpire and a great one. How many foul/foul tips have you called based on hearing it versus seeing it? Especially foul tips where there is no trajectory change in the ball, but you heard the ball hit the bat.

Also think of bangers at first. These are probably made more on sound than sight. Was it smack-thud or was it thud-smack? Sometimes in this situation you sight can impair you call.

I'd try not to tell a coach, "I heard..." I'd say, "I have..." but if I did say, "I heard..." it wouldn't bother me. If the coach wants to try and have a field day he'll be having it somewhere else.

[Umpire in Chief]

Oops look like I was a little late in my post above...

[BrianC14]

... onomatopoeia,

I haven't heard that used since sophomore year 'Appreciation of Poetry'....

For those wondering what it means:

on⋅o⋅mat⋅o⋅poe⋅ia   /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiə, ‑ˌmɑtə‑/

Pronunciation [on-uh-mat-uh-pee-uh, ‑mah-tuh‑]

–noun 1. the formation of a word, as cuckoo or boom, by imitation of a sound made by or associated with its referent.

2. a word so formed.

3. Rhetoric. the use of imitative and naturally suggestive words for rhetorical effect.

[MCLEOD36]

Let me get the cotton from my ears, from all my adoring fans in the stands. I think we use all senses when doing what we do, seeing and hearing is best, dont guess. You can pick up the cues from the catcher too, hand throbbing and those you better call. If he nicks it and gets on, I heard NADA.... But I like Warren's answer...

as for the big words, I just try to gloss over them..... POOF....lol

[Umpire in Chief]

It's stuck in my head now. My daughter was just studying onomatopoeia a few weeks ago in school. Having school aged are kids is great for remembering all the things you were taught but have since forgotten, but still lived a happy and complete life having never needed the information in the first place.

[batterup]

We were discussing CI, not plays at first or foul balls (although you should see foul balls as well).

CI should be seen, but you guys listen all you want. If you hear a CI without seeing it, you blinked.

[carolinablue]

We were discussing CI, not plays at first or foul balls (although you should see foul balls as well).

CI should be seen, but you guys listen all you want. If you hear a CI without seeing it, you blinked.

You must have some great eyes if you can see a bat just nick the catchers mitt on a full swing. That is part of what I was asking. Since the rule doesn't say if bat hits mitt it is interference but does say if the catcher interferes with the batters swing it is interference, on a play where the batter gets a full uninterrupted swing but just nicks the mitt, is that truely interference. I think that everyone is saying Yes, is that correct ?

[batterup]

Yes, that is correct.

[Umpire in Chief]

Yes, a slight nip is CI.

I had another good example of your ears in my game tonight Pitch was behind the batter, he thrusts his hips forward and is grazed by the pitch. Obviously I couldn't see it behind him I could hear it, and that was enough to make the call.

[noumpere]

CI should be seen, but you guys listen all you want. If you hear a CI without seeing it, you blinked.

I don't know that I agree. I am focused on the ball. CI often happens several feet closer to me than the ball is at the time of the CI.

I agree it's in the peripheral vision, but my vision is pretty tightly focused at that point and seeing the subleties of the "ticked mitt" would be pretty hard.

[Mr Umpire]

We were discussing CI, not plays at first or foul balls (although you should see foul balls as well).

CI should be seen, but you guys listen all you want. If you hear a CI without seeing it, you blinked.

All of this does pertain to the same concept.

You will not see a slight nick of the glove just like you cannot see a slight nick of a foul tip.

Also, let's say the batter touches the front side of the glove and not the top of it somehow, are you going to see it through the glove? No, you will hear it. High and tight fastball where the glove is completely blocking your view at the last second. Are you going to adjust to see the pitch? No, you have no time. If you hear the bat hit the glove and don't call it, that coach will "have a field day" with you. Are you not paying attention? Everyone else saw him hit the glove. Why didn't you? Answer: the glove obstructed your view but you could still HEAR it. So, call the CI if you hear it.

You have not been doing this long enough to think you can "see" everything you call. It is not possible. The bat and the ball are moving too fast to see these little subtleties of the game. Even in a CI situation at a level higher than 12 yr olds, you will not see the nick b/c of the speed of the bat from any descent hitter and that you should be watching the ball. If you see a nick, you are not watching the most important thing on the field: the white thing being thrown at you.

This is entirely a very naive statement. You must call the play even if you couldn't see it.

[PeteBooth]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

As been mentioned we use our sensus ALL the time. Plenty of times especially when F2 blocks our view and B1 swings and Fouls the ball we do not actually see the batter hitting the ball.

What we HEAR is that PING noise from the metal bat. Wood is more difficult so hopefully you have an alert BU to aid you when you are blocked.

Also, as an umpire I would not tell you I "heard CI" I would simply say

TIME

that's CI or CO for FED

make the awards if awards needed to be made or give an option if need be.

if you asked me for TIME I would grant it and if questioned I would simply say

"Skip Your F2 interfered with B1" End of story. I would NOT tell you if I actually saw the ball hit the mit or heard it. Simply tell you we have an infraction. At this point you can either accept it or accept it in the parking lot.

Pete Booth

[theedeuce]

If I'm a coach and you tell me you "heard" CI.....

I'm going to have a field day with that one. You need to "see" the bat make contact. What else are you looking at?

... and I would have a field day with a coach coming to me with that argument. I would agree that "I heard catchers interference" would not be the ideal verbiage when making this call. "I have catcher interference" would be more appropriate.

Your eyes should be totally trained to track that white pearl. For a coach to argue that "I need to see the bat make contact" and "what else are you looking at"...... no sir... not a good argument at all.