Catcher Interference on a Steal of Home

[johnnyg08]

 

[Kevin_K]

That's the new CI rule interpretation in action!

From Randy Bruns; September 11, 2024

Rule 8.2.e Exception and 8.3.p

If, with R3 is trying to score on a squeeze play or a steal of home, the catcher steps on or in front of any part of home plate without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or their bat, the pitcher is charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, and the ball is dead.

“In front of any part of home plate” is defined as a step toward the pitcher and any part of the catcher’s foot on the ground beyond the back point of home plate.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

22 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

That's the new CI rule interpretation in action!

From Randy Bruns; January 2025:

Rule 8.2.e Exception and 8.3.p

If, with R3 is trying to score on a squeeze play or a steal of home, the catcher steps on or in front of any part of home plate without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or their bat, the pitcher is charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, and the ball is dead.

“In front of any part of home plate” is defined as a step toward the pitcher and any part of the catcher’s foot on the ground beyond the back point of home plate.

 

I don't see the OP catcher doing that. Am I missing something.

[Richvee]

I’m not sure he’s on or in front of the plate,  it I’m not sure there wasn’t contact either. 

[MadMax]

7 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

the pitcher is charged with a balk

Important to point out, just for technical and semantical clarity → 

Sure, as a baseball colloquialism, we (baseball participants) will label it a “catcher’s balk”, or a “fielder’s balk”, and we’ll chatter about it in war stories and association meetings. However, by rule definition, a Balk is ascribed (“charged”) to the pitcher. Sure, the fielder’s actions can affect the pitcher’s pitch (such as, in this case, to the catcher) or throw (such as, a direct pickoff throw to a F3 or F5 (in non-NFHS) away from their base), rendering it illegal (and therefore a balk with runners aboard), but that penalty is ascribed to the pitcher. 

It curdles my blood every time I hear some amateur umpire say “catcher’s balk” or “first baseman’s balk”. That term is slang, it is not official. 

The reason I bring this up, is that in pro (lowercase) and collegiate baseball, our supervisors and coordinators stress that we are to use “Rulebook terminology” in engagements and discussions with coaches / managers. So yes, this is Catcher’s INT (CI), and is attributed to the pitcher as a Balk, thereby advancing and scoring the Runner (if R3). It is then compounded and conjoined to CI, thereby awarding the Batter 1B. 

Turn the audio off 🔇, you’ll be stupefied by what the broadcasters say, especially in the first minute. Yeesh 😬. 

48 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't see the OP catcher doing that. Am I missing something.

The catcher scooting up that dramatically really heightened PU’s awareness, and it looks like the PU read it (and indeed signaled it) that the catcher received the pitch over the plate, thereby not allowing it to travel through (or past) the zone. That’s going to be the epitome of PU’s judgement call, and I’m sure the crew got together solely to confirm the details of the rule, not whether or not a wing umpire (I think ACC is 4-man) saw the ball’s position any differently. I don’t even think you can video review that. 

[johnnyg08]

Just now, MadMax said:

Turn the audio off 🔇 

What fun would that be? 

[SH0102]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I’m not sure he’s on or in front of the plate,  it I’m not sure there wasn’t contact either. 

Look at the still frame of the video in OP, the batter has the right to swing at that pitch.

if he swings, the catcher is going to the hospital.

Thats the reason that rule exists and why the penalty is so severe, they’re trying to prevent that from ever happening.

While his foot may not be past edge of plate, the catcher most def interfered with the opportunity to swing at the pitch,

if f1 had stepped off and thrown home, catcher can be all up in there. Pitch, he can not

[grayhawk]

45 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Look at the still frame of the video in OP, the batter has the right to swing at that pitch.

if he swings, the catcher is going to the hospital.

Thats the reason that rule exists and why the penalty is so severe, they’re trying to prevent that from ever happening.

While his foot may not be past edge of plate, the catcher most def interfered with the opportunity to swing at the pitch,

if f1 had stepped off and thrown home, catcher can be all up in there. Pitch, he can not

I agree with you philosophically, but that's not how the rule is written. The rule is focused on where F2 steps, not where his glove is positioned. We don't judge whether or not IF that batter swung that he WOULD HAVE hit F2. We judge where F2 steps in relation to the point of the plate. I would certainly be in favor of rewriting the rule to add that when R3 is stealing (or a squeeze), F2 cannot receive the pitch on or over the plate, but until that happens, I believe F2, in this case, was legal.

[BLWizzRanger]

If only there was a site that these announcers could go to see and review these POEs or plays or critiques or rules.

Plus, they should fine them somehow unless they come back the next game and review the call with the audience.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[Velho]

31 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I agree with you philosophically, but that's not how the rule is written

[jimurrayalterego]

37 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I agree with you philosophically, but that's not how the rule is written. The rule is focused on where F2 steps, not where his glove is positioned. We don't judge whether or not IF that batter swung that he WOULD HAVE hit F2. We judge where F2 steps in relation to the point of the plate. I would certainly be in favor of rewriting the rule to add that when R3 is stealing (or a squeeze), F2 cannot receive the pitch on or over the plate, but until that happens, I believe F2, in this case, was legal.

I believe only FED has a caseplay that penalizes “reaching over HP”. 
I agree with you. Until the batter clocks the catcher in OBR/NCAA we have nothing unless there was a touch of the batter. 

[Vegas_Ump]

Since we have the benefit of a side view, you can see that the batter squared to bunt and the catcher came out in front of the catcher's box before the pitch got there.  I judged that the catcher actually touched the bat!  In any rulebook, that's CI, and in the case of an attempted steal of home, it's the only double penalty in baseball.  CI - award batter 1B, balk, all runners advance 1 base.

Mike

Las Vegas

[jimurrayalterego]

5 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Since we have the benefit of a side view, you can see that the batter squared to bunt and the catcher came out in front of the catcher's box before the pitch got there.  I judged that the catcher actually touched the bat!  In any rulebook, that's CI, and in the case of an attempted steal of home, it's the only double penalty in baseball.  CI - award batter 1B, balk, all runners advance 1 base.

Mike

Las Vegas

Do you know the definition of the catcher’s box? The catcher did not leave it. His glove may have or not caught the pitch over the point of the plate. You can hang your hat on touching the batter or his bat if that happened which we don’t have evidence of in the video. 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I judged that the catcher actually touched the bat!

At 3:56, the video evidence is contrary to your judgment.

[jimurrayalterego]

I don't have CI in the OP but if I did my mechanic would be a point at F2, time, that's catchers Interference, point at R3, you, point at HP, point at batter, you 1B, point at runners if they already advanced and point and award if they haven't advanced. 

Any other corrections or embellishments? Maybe time before the point at F2?

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, MadMax said:

The catcher scooting up that dramatically really heightened PU’s awareness, and it looks like the PU read it (and indeed signaled it) that the catcher received the pitch over the plate, thereby not allowing it to travel through (or past) the zone. That’s going to be the epitome of PU’s judgement call, and I’m sure the crew got together solely to confirm the details of the rule, not whether or not a wing umpire (I think ACC is 4-man) saw the ball’s position any differently. I don’t even think you can video review that. 

I’m not at home and don’t have access to my books, but I believe what Max said is key.

This isn’t “the new application” of catcher’s interference.  The catcher did not allow the ball to travel through the zone, thus denying the batter a chance to hit it.

 

Max … so you’re telling me a catcher’s balk is caused by catcher’s obstruction?  😉

[jimurrayalterego]

8 hours ago, MadMax said:

 

The catcher scooting up that dramatically really heightened PU’s awareness, and it looks like the PU read it (and indeed signaled it) that the catcher received the pitch over the plate, thereby not allowing it to travel through (or past) the zone.

I don't see where this is CI in OBR and NCAA. Even when allowing the pitch to travel through the plate his glove can still get hit by the bat and he be guilty of CI. In years past I was an advocate of calling CI when NCAA umpires were not calling it with F2 on the plate and the batter with his bat on the shoulder. NCAA addressed that with interps that the batter did not have to swing to get CI when F2 positioned himself forward out of the catcher's box. But the criteria was and is in the rule and allowing the pitch to travel through the zone is not a criteria except for FED. Allowing a pitch to travel through the zone puts F2 at less risk of getting hit by the bat and thus being guilty of CI. Good catchers with good curveball pitchers will stick that pitch right at the point of the plate. Are we going to nitpick whether it fully passed the point?

[johnnyg08]

Here's another one from just a few hours ago
 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

20 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's another one from just a few hours ago
 

 

That's an easy one, which per my above post wouldn't have been called some years ago because if the batter wasn't swinging F2 did not hinder him.

[grayhawk]

15 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

That's an easy one, which per my above post wouldn't have been called some years ago because if the batter wasn't swing F2 did not hinder him.

Yup, F2 made that call a no doubter.

[Richvee]

35 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's another one from just a few hours ago
 

 

Plus…. This umpire puts on a clinic of flawless mechanics for this call. 

[johnnyg08]

Just now, Richvee said:

Plus…. This umpire puts on a clinic of flawless mechanics for this call. 

Yep. The mechanics in video two are much cleaner. Plus managing the potential rhubarb with the two NC players helping the F2 to his feet. 

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yep. The mechanics in video two are much cleaner. Plus managing the potential rhubarb with the two NC players helping the F2 to his feet. 

I know the call was obvious in this second play, but I can’t help but notice when you come out big on not-so-common plays like this - Give clear, crisp, authoritative signals and accompanying verbal, you actually create a situation where maybe a manager may not even come out and question you. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't see where this is CI in OBR and NCAA. Even when allowing the pitch to travel through the plate his glove can still get hit by the bat and he be guilty of CI. In years past I was an advocate of calling CI when NCAA umpires were not calling it with F2 on the plate and the batter with his bat on the shoulder. NCAA addressed that with interps that the batter did not have to swing to get CI when F2 positioned himself forward out of the catcher's box. But the criteria was and is in the rule and allowing the pitch to travel through the zone is not a criteria except for FED. Allowing a pitch to travel through the zone puts F2 at less risk of getting hit by the bat and thus being guilty of CI. Good catchers with good curveball pitchers will stick that pitch right at the point of the plate. Are we going to nitpick whether it fully passed the point?

Easy . . . you don't need the swing or contact in this case.  We do NOT want to encourage that.

From the EFFECT of 9.5.3 in NCAA:

In OBR, from the definition of "Defensive Interference":

 

OK, the terminology is not the same, but the purpose, practicality, and process are.

 

It was funny, because I was initially reading this right after watching the play in the Cubs-Diamondbacks game today and trying to explain it to my brother-in-law.  (In that play, the pitcher made one hell of a jab step off -- I initially didn't even see it -- which then allows the catcher to come up.)

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Easy . . . you don't need the swing or contact in this case.  We do NOT want to encourage that.

From the EFFECT of 9.5.3 in NCAA:

In OBR, from the definition of "Defensive Interference":

 

OK, the terminology is not the same, but the purpose, practicality, and process are.

 

It was funny, because I was initially reading this right after watching the play in the Cubs-Diamondbacks game today and trying to explain it to my brother-in-law.  (In that play, the pitcher made one hell of a jab step off -- I initially didn't even see it -- which then allows the catcher to come up.)

That is not an NCAA baseball cite. As to OBR, J-R would not call CI on a squeeze where the batter backed out of the box. I think OBR has changed to an extent but we have some questionable no calls still. I've argued CI on more egregious forward catches of the pitch where NCAA umpires said there was no hinder. But this reception of the pitch I would not argue as CI. It could have resulted in CI with a swing but a "legal" reception of the pitch just past the plate could also result in CI. NCAA addressed a step but not a reach. Only FED addresses a reach.