Catcher's Interference?

[Aussie123]

First, I have greatly appreciated the advice from all fellow members over the years. Realizing that dozens of routine games can go by without a "goofy play" occurring, I am always impressed with the insights shared on this forum in analyzing plays. 

In a 16U Little League Srs. game, an overly aggressive catcher, while reaching too far, made contact with the bat. Past CI calls have been the obvious bat-mitt-ball sequence combo, however, this was bizarrely different. The ball came in a bit high, with the catcher reaching out for it.  The batter hits the top half of the ball first, followed by the ball glancing downward and first hitting the catcher's mitt, then the bat strikes the very top of the catcher's mitt. So, it was an oddly bat-ball-mitt sequence. Honestly, it was the sound differential that gave it away as I was ready to call CI.  But it went, the sound of aluminum bat pop first, followed by a dull thunk as the bat then clipped the top of the mitt after first hitting the ball. The ball subsequently went foul. 

Forum searches, earlier found:  "If by his actions, the catcher deprives the batter of the opportunity to hit a pitch, it is by rule and definition catcher's interference."  Here, the batter hit the ball first, unimpeded by the catcher, but the swing of his bat then struck the catcher's mitt. In your opinion, do we still have CI if the bat first hits the ball, then hits the mitt?

[The Man in Blue]

Are you meaning he hit the mitt on the follow through?  If so, no CI.

I can't imagine the sequence as you describe it, but if he got ball first, I still have no CI.  The catcher didn't cause him to not get it squarely.

[Replacematt]

The way it's described, it's a foul ball.

It's going to be a hell of a conversation with the OC if that's what you called, so be prepared in what you're going to say so you can do it calmly and confidently.

[Aussie123]

22 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Are you meaning he hit the mitt on the follow through?  If so, no CI.

I can't imagine the sequence as you describe it, but if he got ball first, I still have no CI.  The catcher didn't cause him to not get it squarely.

Yes, I had never seen it in 25 years of umpiring...not the usual CI with bat-first hitting glove combo. I tried to be brief in my OP, but for more details,  - 16 U LL Srs. game, and as we all know, talent ebbs and flows over the years. Even at my older age, I think I could best the radar gun on the visiting pitcher! So, slow & high pitch made it easy to track to the mitt. Batter hesitated and made his decision to swing late with a downward wood chopping swing. The bat hit the top half of the ball as the catcher, also rather raw in talent, was raising his mitt upward to catch the ball. The bat first hits the ball, and the downward arc then clips the top of the catcher's mitt. The easy call, and the one the OC came down the line expecting, was CI. Honestly, I hesitated too long in calling CI because I wasn't 100% sure of the call due to the unusual sequence of the bat first hitting the ball, then making contact with the mitt. When I explained to the OC the unusual sequence, I was upfront and told him I wasn't sure we had CI. The OC nodded and, having a good rapport with him from over 5 years of umpiring his games, we played on.  Your opinion?

[The Man in Blue]

I figured it had to be a downward chop.

If he got the ball first, no CI.  If the ball had gone fair, you may have had a case for interference on the batter.  May.

[beerguy55]

Practically speaking, I'm not sure how anyone can see (or hear) that in real time...let alone trust their senses enough to believe it.  Yeah, you heard ting/thud...but those two sounds are always on top of each other; most people will convince themselves it happened the other way around....it "had" to happen the other way around.

Otherwise, it would have to mean that the catcher missed the ball outright, with batter contacting the ball behind, if not directly above, the catcher's mitt, to make this possible.

I frankly think you could easily call CI, and not have anyone question it.  Because nobody would really believe it happened in that order, without video.   

Besides, the catcher's mitt was in the swing path, after all. To give an extreme example for consideration - if the catcher setup immediately behind the point of the plate, you're not going to require the batter to clock the catcher to call CI, are you?

[Aussie123]

Thank you for your opinion, Beerguy55. Yes, you are correct. My old Joe West CP got hammered good on several missed catches by the raw catcher that day! He also robbed his slow-lobbing pitcher of several borderline strike calls for failing to catch the ball. You are equally correct that the "ting-thud" sound sequence of the bat, first hitting the ball and then the catcher's mitt, was most unusual and barely discernible. The slow lob pitch, followed by the late downward hacking swing, was the only way I could tell. The best analogy I could make would be how a U1 calls an out on a "whacker" at first base. He/she listens carefully for the pop sound of F6's throw hitting F1's mitt before hearing the thud of the BR's foot hitting the base. 

Hindsight, with gathered opinions from fellow umpires like yourself?  Just call CI and hopefully teach the catcher a memorable lesson. For, after all, LL 16U Srs. is arguably developmental learning for HS Varsity. 

[Velho]

14 minutes ago, Aussie123 said:

He also robbed his slow-lobbing pitcher of several borderline strike calls for failing to catch the ball

🤔

15 minutes ago, Aussie123 said:

LL 16U Srs. is arguably developmental learning for HS Varsity. 

💯