Catcher Interference on a Steal of Home

[The Man in Blue]

25 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

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. 

Ah . . . snot . . . you are wrong and I am wrong.  It is an NCAA citation . . . but I grabbed the softball book (wasn't paying attention to my file names).

Let's try this then (same language as OBR): 

 

 And then, let's go to 8.2 (Batter becomes base runner)

 

Here is the million dollar question: WHAT is that an exception to?  Well, it isn't really an exception, it's an addition.  I would say that is simple: it is adding the balk to the penalty, and is clarifying (although not very well) that the batter does not need to swing to get the interference call.  

This is not a "instead of" requirement when discussing the preventing a swing clause.  The catcher preventing the batter from striking the ball is covered.  The stepping up was a poor attempt at trying to spell things out.

Yes, call the catcher for stepping in front of or on home plate.  Also catch him for sticking his body in a position that may not be on the plate, but prevents the hitter from swinging.

 

As far as OBR not calling interference if the batter backs out . . . I can see taking that as an easy way out: "He wasn't going to swing."  It may or may not be technically correct, but it is more within the spirit of the game than not making the call and allowing the catcher to prevent a swing.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

27 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ah . . . snot . . . you are wrong and I am wrong.  It is an NCAA citation . . . but I grabbed the softball book (wasn't paying attention to my file names).

Let's try this then (same language as OBR): 

 

 And then, let's go to 8.2 (Batter becomes base runner)

 

Here is the million dollar question: WHAT is that an exception to?  Well, it isn't really an exception, it's an addition.  I would say that is simple: it is adding the balk to the penalty, and is clarifying (although not very well) that the batter does not need to swing to get the interference call.  

This is not a "instead of" requirement when discussing the preventing a swing clause.  The catcher preventing the batter from striking the ball is covered.  The stepping up was a poor attempt at trying to spell things out.

Yes, call the catcher for stepping in front of or on home plate.  Also catch him for sticking his body in a position that may not be on the plate, but prevents the hitter from swinging.

 

As far as OBR not calling interference if the batter backs out . . . I can see taking that as an easy way out: "He wasn't going to swing."  It may or may not be technically correct, but it is more within the spirit of the game than not making the call and allowing the catcher to prevent a swing.

 

We, NCAA, OBR haven't addressed "reach". FED has.

[Replacematt]

13 hours ago, MadMax said:

I don’t even think you can video review that. 

Not in this case. Had it been without a steal or squeeze, it could be.

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Are we going to nitpick whether it fully passed the point?

No, we just don't overthink it and just umpire.

This is CI at all levels. NCAA has addressed this directly in their directives not to require a swing, not to consider if a batter has backed out, and that the batter does have a right to the pitch. OBR has done so implicitly with their case plays that talk about the catcher over the plate without specifying foot position.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ah . . . snot . . . you are wrong and I am wrong.  It is an NCAA citation . . . but I grabbed the softball book (wasn't paying attention to my file names).

Let's try this then (same language as OBR): 

 

 And then, let's go to 8.2 (Batter becomes base runner)

 

Here is the million dollar question: WHAT is that an exception to? 

 

The exception is to when a runner is not entitled to the next base.

[Kevin_K]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

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. 

Can you clarify something? Are you saying you would not call this as CI in an NCAA game? If so, can you help me understand why it wouldn't be. 

[Tborze]

My question would be, WTF are the coaches doing?

This seems to be a strategy to draw a CI and/or balk call, so WHY are your batters backing out?  It’s impossible to say what would have happened in the first video what F2 would have done if the batter didn’t back out, but if he did the same thing, maybe it makes the call a no brainer.  I have nothing! 
 

In the second video, just low IQ’s all around.  Squeeze play with a lefty?!  
 

Thoughts @beerguy55

 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Replacematt said:

The exception is to when a runner is not entitled to the next base.

I tried reading it that way, but I’m not getting there.  Why wouldn’t a runner coming home on a steal be entitled to the next base on an interference call?

The point I keep coming back to is that #2 says “with a batter’s swing.”  The exception seems to be saying there does not need to be a swing if the runner is stealing home.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

Can you clarify something? Are you saying you would not call this as CI in an NCAA game? If so, can you help me understand why it wouldn't be. 

It doesn’t satisfy the wording of the rule. F1 did not leave the catcher’s box or touch the batter. I don’t have F1 receiving the pitch over the plate. If you judge over the plate it would satisfy what @Replacematt says is the NCAA interp. I find it strange that Randy Bruns would not address body position when clarifying foot position in his Sept. 24 interp. 

[johnnyg08]

I think at all amateur levels the interp should be the same. No swing required even if the batter steps back. 

With more and more of these finally being captured on video, I think we're starting to see a patter of umpires grabbing these...I don't see the need to be the unicorn. 

I don't want to do down the path of hitters trying to hit the F2. 

[JSam21]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ah . . . snot . . . you are wrong and I am wrong.  It is an NCAA citation . . . but I grabbed the softball book (wasn't paying attention to my file names).

Let's try this then (same language as OBR): 

 

 And then, let's go to 8.2 (Batter becomes base runner)

 

Here is the million dollar question: WHAT is that an exception to?  Well, it isn't really an exception, it's an addition.  I would say that is simple: it is adding the balk to the penalty, and is clarifying (although not very well) that the batter does not need to swing to get the interference call.  

This is not a "instead of" requirement when discussing the preventing a swing clause.  The catcher preventing the batter from striking the ball is covered.  The stepping up was a poor attempt at trying to spell things out.

Yes, call the catcher for stepping in front of or on home plate.  Also catch him for sticking his body in a position that may not be on the plate, but prevents the hitter from swinging.

 

As far as OBR not calling interference if the batter backs out . . . I can see taking that as an easy way out: "He wasn't going to swing."  It may or may not be technically correct, but it is more within the spirit of the game than not making the call and allowing the catcher to prevent a swing.

 

It is an exception to show that the enhanced penalty of the balk ONLY applies when R3 is attempting to steal or advance on a squeeze play. 

[The Man in Blue]

10 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

It doesn’t satisfy the wording of the rule. F1 did not leave the catcher’s box or touch the batter. I don’t have F1 receiving the pitch over the plate. If you judge over the plate it would satisfy what @Replacematt says is the NCAA interp. I find it strange that Randy Bruns would not address body position when clarifying foot position in his Sept. 24 interp. 

“ . . . hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.”  The rule says nothing of leaving the box or touching the batter.
 

Not sure which part of that wording you feel is not satisfied.

 

Randy’s words are interpretations, not rules.  Stop falling back on “Randy (or any other person) didn’t say so.”  

This is why we need a fundamental restructuring of interpretations and case plays.  They should help an umpire understand how to apply a rule, not become the rules.

[jimurrayalterego]

47 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

“ . . . hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.”  The rule says nothing of leaving the box or touching the batter.
 

Not sure which part of that wording you feel is not satisfied.

 

Randy’s words are interpretations, not rules.  Stop falling back on “Randy (or any other person) didn’t say so.”  

This is why we need a fundamental restructuring of interpretations and case plays.  They should help an umpire understand how to apply a rule, not become the rules.

"8-3-p� If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference�

PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.

Are you going to call garden variety CI on a catcher who scoots up legally in the box to receive a junk ball pitcher, putting himself at risk for glove being tipped depending on batter's location, without that happening? He might or might not hinder or prevent the bat from hitting the pitch and we will know that when it happens.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

My question would be, WTF are the coaches doing?

This seems to be a strategy to draw a CI and/or balk call, so WHY are your batters backing out?  It’s impossible to say what would have happened in the first video what F2 would have done if the batter didn’t back out, but if he did the same thing, maybe it makes the call a no brainer.  I have nothing! 
 

In the second video, just low IQ’s all around.  Squeeze play with a lefty?!  
 

Thoughts @beerguy55

 

Stepping out may just be a natural reaction to seeing the catcher in your way...not sure...but for me, for the first video, I just see a very bad at bat.  My rule on squeeze and hit and run was always simple...you do EVERYTHING you can to put your bat on the ball.  He failed to do so.

I don't think the squeeze here is called to induce CI, but these batters need to be taught to just make a bunt attempt even if the catcher is standing on the plate; it would be very easy to make contact with the catcher, without any of the risks associated with a full swing, and make it blindingly obvious for the ump - and then you're not worried about the ump judging if F2 is in front of the plate or not.

Yeah - calling a squeeze with a lefty is just a bad idea in almost all scenarios.  It's so easy just to pitch outside to a lefty and naturally bring the catcher to the runner.  I'm not convinced a squeeze was called in the second one...may have been straight steal, but perhaps batter missed the play.

But, if the other coach isn't teaching situational awareness for the squeeze, then I guess that doesn't matter.

And, then, of course, especially with a right-handed batter, the life hack for the squeeze can be hitting the batter, depending on the criticality of the run.

What I see are batters, catchers and pitchers not thinking...they're just blindly doing.   If I'm calling a squeeze, I want my most savvy player at the plate.

btw - on the first video the runner beat the tag, so it's moot.

[jimurrayalterego]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

btw - on the first video the runner beat the tag, so it's moot.

Moot except for putting the batter at 1B and advancing runners if they didn't on the play. The batter most likely also got screwed in two NCAA triple steals some years ago when the CI was not recognized and R3 was safe. We came to the conclusion, which you might confirm, that although CI was missed, the coach would rather have a triple steal on their record than the batter at 1B.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, jimurrayalterego said:

Moot except for putting the batter at 1B and advancing runners if they didn't on the play. 

Right and any baserunner or program worth anything will be moving/following R3

[jimurrayalterego]

2 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Right and any baserunner or program worth anything will be moving/following R3

So usually only the batter will get screwed although he may prefer to stay and get some RBIs.

[johnnyg08]

18 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So usually only the batter will get screwed although he may prefer to stay and get some RBIs.

I think we're wandering a bit (unless I'm missing something)likely...Won't the batter will be going to 1B on the CI?

 

 

[Replacematt]

33 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

"8-3-p� If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference�

PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.

Are you going to call garden variety CI on a catcher who scoots up legally in the box to receive a junk ball pitcher, putting himself at risk for glove being tipped depending on batter's location, without that happening? He might or might not hinder or prevent the bat from hitting the pitch and we will know that when it happens.

If he reaches over the plate, yep. Had such a catcher on Saturday.

[jimurrayalterego]

3 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

If he reaches over the plate, yep. Had such a catcher on Saturday.

Reaches over for sure in FED and you have convinced me that NCAA now calls it as FED does. In the OP if you have the catch over the plate or forward past the point on either side you have CI. A welcome change from back when high profile NCAA umpires were espousing no swing, no CI. 
I’m still not sure about OBR, some MLB plays lingering in my memory. Are you citing the current OBR rulebook case plays?

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

If he reaches over the plate, yep. Had such a catcher on Saturday.

Did you call CI on this catcher when he reached over the plate to receive a pitch that wasn't swung at?

I had a catcher a few games ago that was so close I swore he was going to get hit at some time during the game, but he never did. It never occurred to me to call CI on him unless the bat hit him.

[Replacematt]

59 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Reaches over for sure in FED and you have convinced me that NCAA now calls it as FED does. In the OP if you have the catch over the plate or forward past the point on either side you have CI. A welcome change from back when high profile NCAA umpires were espousing no swing, no CI. 
I’m still not sure about OBR, some MLB plays lingering in my memory. Are you citing the current OBR rulebook case plays?

I'm looking at Wendlestedt plays from about six years ago.

[Replacematt]

Just now, grayhawk said:

Did you call CI on this catcher when he reached over the plate to receive a pitch that wasn't swung at?

I had a catcher a few games ago that was so close I swore he was going to get hit at some time during the game, but he never did. It never occurred to me to call CI on him unless the bat hit him.

He never got there. Damn close, and he was close enough where a batter set deep in the box would have hit his head or frame, but they were all up trying to get on the junk ball before it did something weird. Didn't work, as that catcher's team won 8 or 9-0.

His positioning and catching style caused another issue for me, which is not all too uncommon--he'd react to the pitch and catch them at his body, whereas the other one (probably the best I've seen all year) was great at getting out in front and working the mitt with the path of the ball. His pitcher would work black to chalk and every pitch looked exactly the same in that area, whether it was tickling the plate or entirely on the line. Because of that, I had to issue the formal B/S warning in the bottom of the second as I was calling balls on pitches that were beautifully presented and looked like the strikes I had just called. Ironically, the first catcher's method of throwing his mitt side to side cost them a few strikes and I probably called more for the complaining HC.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

He never got there. Damn close, and he was close enough where a batter set deep in the box would have hit his head or frame, but they were all up trying to get on the junk ball before it did something weird. Didn't work, as that catcher's team won 8 or 9-0.

His positioning and catching style caused another issue for me, which is not all too uncommon--he'd react to the pitch and catch them at his body, whereas the other one (probably the best I've seen all year) was great at getting out in front and working the mitt with the path of the ball. His pitcher would work black to chalk and every pitch looked exactly the same in that area, whether it was tickling the plate or entirely on the line. Because of that, I had to issue the formal B/S warning in the bottom of the second as I was calling balls on pitches that were beautifully presented and looked like the strikes I had just called. Ironically, the first catcher's method of throwing his mitt side to side cost them a few strikes and I probably called more for the complaining HC.

But you have to agree that calling CI on a random pitch where F2 reached over the plate to receive (no steal of home or squeeze) with no swing would be a sure way to need to call the fire department.

[johnnyg08]

16 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

But you have to agree that calling CI on a random pitch where F2 reached over the plate to receive (no steal of home or squeeze) with no swing would be a sure way to need to call the fire department.

I would agree with that...as would most. Hopefully.