Catcher Interference on a Steal of Home

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

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

Why would a squeeze or steal change your rationalization? FED calls it anytime. 

[johnnyg08]

21 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Why would a squeeze or steal change your rationalization? FED calls it anytime. 

Well, because I think it's a feel for the game play. 

I'm not training umpires to call games by the letter of the rule book on every single play. 

That's where I'm coming from I guess. 

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Well, because I think it's a feel for the game play. 

I'm not training umpires to call games by the letter of the rule book on every single play. 

That's where I'm coming from I guess. 

And what feel for the OP do you have? If you give a pass to F2 catching a pitch over the point of the plate with no steal or swing what changes in the OP? Back in 2013 high level NCAA umpires used feel for the game to justify not calling CI with F2 standing on the plate but no swing. 

[Tborze]

If the batter bails with no intent, what was obstructed?  
 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, Tborze said:

If the batter bails with no intent, what was obstructed?  
 

 

That was the opinion of Jaska - Roder and some old school NCAA umpires, some going as far as not bailing but no swing. You can see the obvious conclusion @beerguy55 and other coaches might make going forward and NCAA decided they didn't want the catcher clocked. Even after NCAA put out an interp to call it we had a thread with video of it being properly called but the batter swung over F2's head just to be sure as I'm guessing his coach told him.

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

And what feel for the OP do you have? If you give a pass to F2 catching a pitch over the point of the plate with no steal or swing what changes in the OP? Back in 2013 high level NCAA umpires used feel for the game to justify not calling CI with F2 standing on the plate but no swing. 

High level NCAA umpires kick the $hit out of stuff all of the time. It should not be the measure of what's right or wrong. 

It doesn't mean they're generally bad at what they do (quite the opposite)...just that they're fallible like you and me. 

You can go ahead and call it with no runner stealing home, defend it with your unicorn interpretation of the rule and see how far you advance up the ladder. I have no care in the world how you choose to umpire the play. 

In the OP...the runner is stealing home...in my mind...that's the feel for the game along with the intent & spirit of the rule being put into play. 

No steal, no play, no violation. 

I'm not out to change your mind as I don't have strong feelings one way or the other how you choose to umpire that play. 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

High level NCAA umpires kick the $hit out of stuff all of the time. It should not be the measure of what's right or wrong. 

It doesn't mean they're generally bad at what they do (quite the opposite)...just that they're fallible like you and me. 

You can go ahead and call it with no runner stealing home, defend it with your unicorn interpretation of the rule and see how far you advance up the ladder. I have no care in the world how you choose to umpire the play. 

In the OP...the runner is stealing home...in my mind...that's the feel for the game along with the intent & spirit of the rule being put into play. 

No steal, no play, no violation. 

I'm not out to change your mind as I don't have strong feelings one way or the other how you choose to umpire that play. 

 

I have no violation on the OP and wouldn’t expect to grab a violation for a catcher scooted up with nothing happening. 
In the OP the runner was safe. You judged the pitch was caught over the point and gave the catcher an advantage that should be punished?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I have no violation on the OP and wouldn’t expect to grab a violation for a catcher scooted up with nothing happening. 
In the OP the runner was safe. You judged the pitch was caught over the point and gave the catcher an advantage that should be punished?

 

From the angle in the video, that ball never left the plate, from catch to tag.

Giving "the catcher an advantage" is not what is being punished.  It is preventing the hitter from having an opportunity to hit the pitch.  Nothing in the rule says he has to hit it, nothing says he even has to want to hit it.  You cannot take away the opportunity.

Technically, the runner doesn't even have a role in this particular call (other than being the impetus for the catcher's actions).  This call is not about a steal or a squeeze play (the applied penalty is).

The only way this is NOT a catcher preventing the hitter an opportunity is if the hitter far enough up in the box that he had an opportunity.

[Replacematt]

6 hours 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.

Depends. Again, sometimes you just have to umpire. It's not like a fair/foul where I'm going to be looking directly down the plane of what I need to see, so I'm gonna need to absolutely know the mitt is over the plate. And if not, well, that's one for video review if they so choose. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

From the angle in the video, that ball never left the plate, from catch to tag. I differ.

Giving "the catcher an advantage" is not what is being punished.  It is preventing the hitter from having an opportunity to hit the pitch.  Nothing in the rule says he has to hit it, nothing says he even has to want to hit it.  You cannot take away the opportunity.

You cannot take away the opportunity when there is a steal or squeeze? Some are saying you can with nothing happening and a batter not swinging. You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you call it a feel for the game or just "umpiring". 

 

I think I'm arguing for arguing sake. 

[Tborze]

10 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I think I'm arguing for arguing sake. 

After watching the video again, I must say, this has to be called to remain consistent with the rule and its purpose!

In my first watch the movements seemed simultaneous.  In the second, F2 definitely moves into the batters swing path and creates an advantage by getting 2ft closer to make a tag. 
 

Textbook CI/CO 

Damn it, now I think I have to go recant a previous post!  
 

Congrats @johnnyg08 You got 3 pages out of it lol  

 

 

[Tborze]

On 4/20/2025 at 2:32 PM, 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.

Doesn’t a legal pitch have to cross HP?  
 

I too believe the rule could be tweaked for a squeeze play, mainly because the batter is most likely not swinging. 

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I think I'm arguing for arguing sake. 

[puts on English teacher hat]
 

No, no, no!  We are arguing for the sake of academic exploration!  We can’t fix things until we have a thorough understanding of all the points of view.  Agreeing is not the goal, understanding is.

 

[places mask back on, realizes he has the wrong hat]

 

You cannot take away the opportunity when there is a steal or squeeze? Some are saying you can with nothing happening and a batter not swinging. You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you call it a feel for the game or just "umpiring". 

 

That is what the exception is about.  It is accounting for the steal/squeeze when there is no actual swing.  It is still a pitch and the catcher cannot take away that opportunity.  

Forget anything about the runners and just focus on the pitch.  That is the essential piece.

I think it was @beerguy55 who said the hitter needs to get the bat on the ball at all costs under his coaching strategy.  We don’t know when the hitter may change his mind and swing, so that opportunity must remain intact, even if we don’t think he is going to.

[Replacematt]

I (as I often do) was drifting off to sleep and thinking of baseball; this conversation in particular. And I was thinking about how this would play out in the games I do if I didn't call it on a non-steal/squeeze situation.

1. No one would notice.
2. Offense would notice, and casually/informally ask me about it at a later point in the game, between innings or something. 
3. Offense would notice immediately and vociferously want the call. And if I tell them I didn't see it and I'll keep an eye out for it, then the retort would likely involve ensuring I see it by having the batter swing when they see that mitt out there.

Because 3 is what the NCAA has said they don't want happening at least twice in the offseason (and the ethical considerations of waiting for a potentially-injurious situation regardless,) the composite risk matrix tells me I need to call it if I know it is out there. I'm treating this mentally like a runner tagging up at 3B--if I am 100% sure they left early, I'll call it. Short of that, I won't.

[Tborze]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

[puts on English teacher hat]
 

No, no, no!  We are arguing for the sake of academic exploration!  We can’t fix things until we have a thorough understanding of all the points of view.  Agreeing is not the goal, understanding is.

 

[places mask back on, realizes he has the wrong hat]

 

You cannot take away the opportunity when there is a steal or squeeze? Some are saying you can with nothing happening and a batter not swinging. You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you call it a feel for the game or just "umpiring". 

 

That is what the exception is about.  It is accounting for the steal/squeeze when there is no actual swing.  It is still a pitch and the catcher cannot take away that opportunity.  

Forget anything about the runners and just focus on the pitch.  That is the essential piece.

I think it was @beerguy55 who said the hitter needs to get the bat on the ball at all costs under his coaching strategy.  We don’t know when the hitter may change his mind and swing, so that opportunity must remain intact, even if we don’t think he is going to.

Is the word “opportunity” actually in the rule?  
The reason I ask is, the batter still has the opportunity, it’s just not the desired action we want taken in order to penalize.  What is the alternative? Start cracking catchers in the head?  
 

Maybe the alternative is for coaches to start teaching hitters to do their job.  
 

 

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Well, I guess you can if you call it a feel for the game or just "umpiring". 

Minus a squeeze situation, I'm not really looking for it as there are certainly many other things more pressing. I mean, I can tell if the F2 is up there trying to catch the ball as close to the apex of home plate as possible. Is the pitch clearing all of home plate? If it's that close, I don't know for sure. 

I lean a little more with what @Replacematt wrote above. It's more realistic that's how it's going to play out. 

"Hey...he looks pretty close to home plate on certain pitches, can you keep an eye on that?" 

Sure Skip, no problem. 

Let the game come to us...don't go looking for things that may or may not be there. 

In the first clip, I think it's fair to say that it's pretty tight. That being said, I don't have a problem with the call. On safety rules...which this is...we should err on the side of safety.