NFHS Catcher's Interference (OBS) - Bat may not hit ball?

[Tog Gee]

I understand the details of catcher's interference. Delayed dead ball, coach's options etc.

1) My question is: If the bat swings and hits the mitt and the ball goes fair, must the bat have struck the ball for this to be a fair ball or does the CI allow for this to be a fair ball even if the bat ONLY contacts the mitt?

 

2) Also, what is the threshold for the bat being way too late/behind on CI? Not all mitt contact has to be CI (we're talking 10U and 12U oddball swings)  Last night I had a kid swing well behind them while the catcher only reached out a couple inches. The back tip of the plate is part of the strike zone anyhow but I suspect the catcher's mitt was still a few inches behind the plate (foul territory)

[noumpere]

1) Yes.

2) Unless the batter intentionally aims at the catcher, this is CI -- it's up to the catcher to be far enough back.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, Toggy said:

1) My question is: If the bat swings and hits the mitt and the ball goes fair, must the bat have struck the ball for this to be a fair ball or does the CI allow for this to be a fair ball even if the bat ONLY contacts the mitt?

If the batter never struck the ball it can't be a fair ball...it's not a batted ball.

 

4 hours ago, Toggy said:

2) Also, what is the threshold for the bat being way too late/behind on CI? Not all mitt contact has to be CI (we're talking 10U and 12U oddball swings)  Last night I had a kid swing well behind them while the catcher only reached out a couple inches. The back tip of the plate is part of the strike zone anyhow but I suspect the catcher's mitt was still a few inches behind the plate (foul territory)

The back of the batter's box is two feet behind the point of the plate.  The batter's allowed to swing at anything in that area, and even a reasonable distance behind it.  If the catcher's mitt is in the way it's CI.  Your judgment is when the pitch ends if you're trying to figure out if the batter swung too late (eg. the ball passes the catcher and goes to the fence and THEN the batter swings).  If the catcher catches the ball and then is throwing it back to the pitcher when the batter swings it's not CI.  Other than that, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batter.

[Tog Gee]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

The back of the batter's box is two feet behind the point of the plate.  The batter's allowed to swing at anything in that area, and even a reasonable distance behind it.  If the catcher's mitt is in the way it's CI.  Your judgment is when the pitch ends if you're trying to figure out if the batter swung too late (eg. the ball passes the catcher and goes to the fence and THEN the batter swings).  If the catcher catches the ball and then is throwing it back to the pitcher when the batter swings it's not CI.  Other than that, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batter.

Thanks. In our rec league we have no catchers box. And we have some pitches descending into the zone steeply. I think I have to move our catchers back a little bit and they will have to get better about blocking bouncing balls. 

In our league, the umpires assist in helping the catcher learn how to play the position. It's actually a cool aspect of our league.

Yesterday was their first game.

Thanks.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Toggy said:

Thanks. In our rec league we have no catchers box.

 

Yes you do (likely).  It might not be marked, but you (probably) have one.

[DevildogUmp]

@ToggyWhile it may work for your local league, I would be careful "coaching" a catcher about positioning while umpiring. If you tell a catcher where to position themselves and they get injured, you can bet the first thing said, is "The umpire told me to be there". If I have a catcher that is creeping into the danger zone in my local league (LL Minors and sometimes Majors) I just bring it to the coach's attention - "Bill, do you want your catcher set up there?" and let the coach correct it.

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:09 AM, Toggy said:

) My question is: If the bat swings and hits the mitt and the ball goes fair, must the bat have struck the ball for this to be a fair ball or does the CI allow for this to be a fair ball even if the bat ONLY contacts the mitt?

Interesting question.  For the sake of consistency, I would have catcher's interference. If we're going to call catcher's interference if the ball is foul we should also call CI if it's fair.  

[Senor Azul]

The FED catcher obstruction rule doesn't say anything about the results of an obstructed swing--it doesn't have to. All that matters is that the batter is hindered.

FED case book play 7.3.5F tells us that 

...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...

And its rule 2-22-1 even defines catcher obstruction as hindering. There are several case plays in the case book dealing with CO. I didn't find any that dealt with the result being a foul ball--in fact most use the example of a fair ball resulting from the obstructed swing. But case play 8.1.1J deals with an obstructed swing and a miss.

If we can call CO on a fair ball or on a miss why not on a foul ball? 

[beerguy55]

On 5/26/2023 at 5:20 PM, Senor Azul said:

The FED catcher obstruction rule doesn't say anything about the results of an obstructed swing--it doesn't have to. All that matters is that the batter is hindered.

FED case book play 7.3.5F tells us that 

...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...

And its rule 2-22-1 even defines catcher obstruction as hindering. There are several case plays in the case book dealing with CO. I didn't find any that dealt with the result being a foul ball--in fact most use the example of a fair ball resulting from the obstructed swing. But case play 8.1.1J deals with an obstructed swing and a miss.

If we can call CO on a fair ball or on a miss why not on a foul ball? 

The results of the swing most certainly matter in CI, if the conditions arise that allow the team the choice to take the play.

On 5/26/2023 at 4:05 PM, BigBlue4u said:

Interesting question.  For the sake of consistency, I would have catcher's interference. If we're going to call catcher's interference if the ball is foul we should also call CI if it's fair.  

I think you're misinterpreting the question.

 

If the bat only contacts the mitt it isn't a batted ball.  The ball can be neither fair nor foul.  So, for example, if the batter hits the back of the catcher's mitt and that causes the ball to fly forward into fair territory, it's simply CI.  

I'm unclear if this would be considered "put in play" for the purposes of a team taking the result of the play.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm unclear if this would be considered "put in play" for the purposes of a team taking the result of the play.

IF the ball is neither batted, fair, nor foul -- how could there be any "play" (for this discussion)?

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

IF the ball is neither batted, fair, nor foul -- how could there be any "play" (for this discussion)?

Batter swings, hits catcher's mitt, batter and catcher both miss ball, ball goes to backstop, runners advance, one scores, one gets thrown out...OR

Batter swings, hits catcher's mitt, R1 and R2 are stealing, F2 catches pitch, throws ball into LF...R2 scores, R1 gets thrown out at third.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm unclear if this would be considered "put in play" for the purposes of a team taking the result of the play.

In both cases, I would think that since the batter did not advance at least one base, the penalty would be enforced.  The coach would not have an option to take the result of the play.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Batter swings, hits catcher's mitt, batter and catcher both miss ball, ball goes to backstop, runners advance, one scores, one gets thrown out...OR

Batter swings, hits catcher's mitt, R1 and R2 are stealing, F2 catches pitch, throws ball into LF...R2 scores, R1 gets thrown out at third.

Yes -- I was confused by your use of "put in play" -- I don't think that's in the rule.  The NFHS just uses "resulting play."  OBR says "if a play follows.."

[beerguy55]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

In both cases, I would think that since the batter did not advance at least one base, the penalty would be enforced.  The coach would not have an option to take the result of the play.

But isn't that when the coach gets the choice...when all runners and the batter/runner do NOT advance?   And in this scenario, there's no batter/runner (let's say it was the first pitch of the count).

The whole point of the option is if, as one example, the batter flies out and R3 scores the winning run on the tag up, the coach can take the run.

So, in my scenario, one runner advances, one gets out....or, to go further, both runners advance and the batter doesn't because they didn't hit the ball...it's otherwise just strike one.

With R1/R2 you're just taking CI (probably)....with R2/R3 you may opt for a run, R3 and a strike on the batter.  The question is...can you?