Narváez Called for CI for 2nd Day in a Row - Balk Too!

[Lindsay]

Called for catcher's interference one day earlier, Red Sox catcher Carlos Narváez again committed CI, this time with a side of balk as HP Umpire Edwin Jimenez ruling he stepped in front of the back edge of home plate prior during a pitch and prior to receiving the ball as Phillies runner Bryce Harper looked to steal home plate.

Catcher's interference is defined more broadly as defensive interference in the Official Baseball Rules: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch." In high school (NFHS), catcher's interference is called catcher's obstruction, as NFHS defensive interference is specifically an act that occurs prior to the pitch.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(g) directly addresses this case of the so-called catcher's balk: "If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or their bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Narváez called for catcher's interference AGAIN, this time with a side of balk

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

We have some ancient threads on U-E where big dog umps argued against calling this and even Jaska-Roder had an interp where it was not CI. There also were some doubtful no-calls in MLB in the past. Nice to see them go to NY for a rules check to confirm they were no longer using Jaska-Roder.

[Velho]

10 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Nice to see them go to NY for a rules check to confirm they were no longer using Jaska-Roder.

To be clear: you're referring to grabbing CI even though the batter bailed out of the box?

[SeeingEyeDog]

Am I the only one seeing the ball in the mitt and then the bat touching the mitt? If that is the case, what is he interfering with?

~Dawg

[Velho]

56 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Am I the only one seeing the ball in the mitt and then the bat touching the mitt?

Guessing you referring to yesterdays game ending CI and not the one with R3 stealing home.

58 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

If that is the case, what is he interfering with?

Case law shows that's not a criteria.

https://www.closecallsports.com/2021/04/kershaw-profars-catcher-interference.html

 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

To be clear: you're referring to grabbing CI even though the batter bailed out of the box?

I’m referring to Big Dogs defending no-calls by other big dogs when a no swing or a bailout happened. J-R was cited by others for bailout. No swing was rationalized as “what was interfered with” in various threads about the subject. 

[dumbdumb]

i think some questions reguarded the fact of the catcher was not physically stepping on home plate, or those where he just barely able to tip toe up beside the plate on a pitch just inside or outside the corner of the plate, for on or in front of.

and how about 'a call and the way it is handled type of call'  that gets you discovered or to the big leagues.  those area scout supervisors. (Fredi Gonzalez, in Philadelphia now that the basketball and baseball famous, Hank Nichols has retired, Kevin O'Connor up in Boston (from umpire media guide on stevetheump) plus the supervisor on the MLB umpire staff assigned to this crew who may or may not have been there, plus all the team scouts in the stands talking and their scuttlebutt about what a great call that was, and others not there probably loved this one.

[Tog Gee]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

grabbing CI even though the batter bailed out of the box?

Gosh, I do understand the ruling, but if the batter bails, the catcher could be free to go wherever he likes. How can you interfere with a batter that's 6 feet away from the plate?

Or maybe the batter will sometimes bail out because of the catcher jumping onto the plate? So we have to grab INT/OBS? (based on principle)

[SeeingEyeDog]

Ugh...sigh...sorry, thank you for clearing that up, @Velho. As if the two plays needed to be confused any more than they are...

~Dawg

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

Gosh, I do understand the ruling, but if the batter bails, the catcher could be free to go wherever he likes. How can you interfere with a batter that's 6 feet away from the plate?

Or maybe the batter will sometimes bail out because of the catcher jumping onto the plate? So we have to grab INT/OBS? (based on principle)

Then how do we call a pitch a ball or a strike when it never even reaches the plate? At a minimum, we have to call that a balk, just like if the pitcher drops the ball and it never crosses the foul line.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Then how do we call a pitch a ball or a strike when it never even reaches the plate? At a minimum, we have to call that a balk, just like if the pitcher drops the ball and it never crosses the foul line.

 The big dogs argued back in day the that while it couldn't be a strike, a "not strike" is a ball.

[Tog Gee]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Then how do we call a pitch a ball or a strike when it never even reaches the plate?

Great point.

 

[grayhawk]

8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 The big dogs argued back in day the that while it couldn't be a strike, a "not strike" is a ball.

I remember those threads and was never in their camp. But I wasn't at their level so I wasn't going to press it.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I remember those threads and was never in their camp. But I wasn't at their level so I wasn't going to press it.

Me neither, but most if not all the threads had CI when even though the catcher went in front, R3 was safe. So no harm, no foul, except for the batter. 

[grayhawk]

13 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Me neither, but most if not all the threads had CI when even though the catcher went in front, R3 was safe. So no harm, no foul, except for the batter. 

I remember one specifically where the pitch was very high and R3 was safe. I think the batter was backing out.