Catcher Obstruction Rule

[wadeintothem]

Holy take a simple rule and confuse everyone including yourself batman.. what in the holy hell are you talkin bout willis? None of that has anything to do with a very simple rule as stated by comp. The only time CO could ever simply be ruled a ball on the batter is if the coach, (likely confused by you ) stated that was what he wanted when/if he were offered that choice.

Yes - common sense tells you play means play.

It doesnt mean play.

Jeez.

[Bretman]

Yep, that is one third world tangent I went off on there! It's not anything that has ever happened in one of my games and probably never will.

But another poster raised the issue of an umpire offering the CO penalty or a ball to the batter- it wasn't me! That begs the question of if a ball to the batter is even an a possibility here. If the batter didn't offer at the pitch, yet was obstructed, can the "no swing/ball called" be the "result of the play". Or does the batter have to go to first?

One umpire (whose posts I'm familiar with and opinion I respect) checked in to say he thought CO couldn't result in a ball to the batter because "no swing" equals "no result of play to offer".

My own reading of the rules leads me to a different conclusion. Admittedly, either conclusion requires some inferences and reading between the lines. This isn't a point specifically covered by the rules.

C'mon, Wade! Every once in awhile there's bound to be a questions raised where the answer is something more than "Read your rule book" or "See rule number XYZ". Where's the fun in that!

So, how about you? Presented with this play would you allow the option for the offensive coach to have a ball added to the batter's count or would you require the batter to go to first?

[wadeintothem]

honestly, I'd just award first... I when I believe it to be obvious.. ie when the offense got nothing. Perhaps I need to work on that, but its never been an issue.

If they selected "ball", perhaps i'd warn them for trying to delay the game!!!