Catcher Obstruction Rule

[texas_snowman]

ASA Definitions

OBSTRUCTION

The act of a defensive team member
A. Who hinders or impedes a batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball
B. A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or a batter runner who is legally running the bases UNLESS the fielder is
1. In possesion of the ball
2. Fielding a batted ball
NOTE : Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the runner

So, if a catcher's glove gets in the way of the bat, it should be called obstruction on the catcher instead of catcher interference? It just seems that I've always heard blue call it interference.

[K'SDAD]

I'm pretty sure you have worked behind my DD, She was on the So Cal Pumas for the last 4+ years & Always played in Stocton and Sac. quite a few times. You would remember her 5' 13" tall w/ long blonde hair that trows from the knees. [/quote]

So she is 6' 1"?

[MTR]

ASA Definitions

OBSTRUCTION

The act of a defensive team member
A. Who hinders or impedes a batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball
B. A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or a batter runner who is legally running the bases UNLESS the fielder is
1. In possesion of the ball
2. Fielding a batted ball
NOTE : Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the runner

So, if a catcher's glove gets in the way of the bat, it should be called obstruction on the catcher instead of catcher interference? It just seems that I've always heard blue call it interference.

If the umpire was working a softball game and calls that interference, s/he is working the wrong game or hasn't learned the rules of softball.

[watcher]

I'm pretty sure you have worked behind my DD, She was on the So Cal Pumas for the last 4+ years & Always played in Stocton and Sac. quite a few times. You would remember her 5' 13" tall w/ long blonde hair that trows from the knees.

So she is 6' 1"?[/quote]

Yes, Yes she is, But I wouldn't want to be within arms length of her the next time you say that She doesn't like the 6' thing, No different than alot of other girls

[Jalamander]

So, if a catcher's glove gets in the way of the bat, it should be called obstruction on the catcher instead of catcher interference? It just seems that I've always heard blue call it interference.

By definition of terms, the Offense interferes and the Defense obstructs. However, in a number of rulebooks it has been called Catcher Interference. I believe, as MTR noted, it is still called Catcher Interference in some BB rules.
ASA 8.1.D and NFHS 5-1-2b call it catcher obstruction. LL softball 6.08(c) still calls it interference.
Those umpires who are ambidextrous may, without thinking, call it interference in a SB game. It's semantics. Either way you call it, the penalty is the same.

[texas_snowman]

So, if a catcher's glove gets in the way of the bat, it should be called obstruction on the catcher instead of catcher interference? It just seems that I've always heard blue call it interference.

By definition of terms, the Offense interferes and the Defense obstructs. However, in a number of rulebooks it has been called Catcher Interference. I believe, as MTR noted, it is still called Catcher Interference in some BB rules.
ASA 8.1.D and NFHS 5-1-2b call it catcher obstruction. LL softball 6.08(c) still calls it interference.
Those umpires who are ambidextrous may, without thinking, call it interference in a SB game. It's semantics. Either way you call it, the penalty is the same.

Thanks, Jalamander...
Also, something else happened this past weekend that I had never seen before.
One of OUR players was at bat, when the opposing catcher was called for "catcher interference".
Instead of sending the batter to 1st base, the plate umpire asked our coach whether he would rather have the batter awarded first base, or simply have the pitch called a "ball". He said he was required to do so. Made sense once he explained it to us lowly parents after the game.

[Comp]

Huh? If the catcher obstructs the batter, it is a delayed dead ball. The batter and any runners on base must all reach safely or the ball is dead. If all of the offensive players reach base safely, the catchers obstruction is cancelled. If there were runners on base and they do not all reach safely, the offensive coach has the option to either accept the result of the play or the base award of the batter. Runners would all be returned to the last base touched prior to the pitch, unless forced by the batter/runner.

[Bretman]

This infraction is called "catcher interference" in THE baseball rule set- that being THE "Official Baseball Rules" (OBR) as set forth by Major League Baseball. They own those rules, they began using the term several decades before the first "official" softball rule book was ever written and I guess that they can call it whatever they want. It wouldn't be the first semantically inconsistent usage of a term or phrase in a baseball or softball rule book.

The term isn't universally used in all baseball rule sets. For instance, high school baseball (ie: National Federation Rules) calls this exact same infraction "catcher obstruction".

Most softball rule sets do call this obstruction, not interference. As noted, Little League softball is one exception. Being rooted in OBR rules through their baseball programs, they have freely borrowed many OBR terms and definitions in their softball rules.

You already got the answer on how catcher obstruction is enforced (cancelled if batter reaches first and all other runners advance one base, or else give coach option of taking the penalty or result of the play, etc.). Now I'm scratching my head to come up with any scenario where catcher obstruction could rightfully be ruled a ball to the batter!

How about this one:

Suppose the batter was obstructed before having a chance to take a full swing at the pitch. She successfully checks her swing and the pitch is out of the strike zone.

Wouldn't the option offered to the coach be to either add a ball to the batter's count (the result of the play) or enforce the obstruction (award batter first base)? You would have to think that most coaches would take the base award, but I suppose you could envision some scenario where he might want to keep a particular hitter at bat (like a power hitter who had been on a tear).

[Jalamander]

Suppose the batter was obstructed before having a chance to take a full swing at the pitch. She successfully checks her swing and the pitch is out of the strike zone.

Wouldn't the option offered to the coach be to either add a ball to the batter's count (the result of the play) or enforce the obstruction (award batter first base)? You would have to think that most coaches would take the base award, but I suppose you could envision some scenario where he might want to keep a particular hitter at bat (like a power hitter who had been on a tear).

I would have to say "No." A check-swing is not a subsequent play as noted it most rule sets.

[Bretman]

That crossed my mind. But, semantically, the use of the word "play" in the catcher obstruction rule (as in where it refers to "the result of the play") does not jibe with the rule book definition of "a play".

For instance, ASA defines "a play" as : "An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal".

Now consider this one- A batter swings, hits the catcher's mitt, obstruction is called, the batter successfully singles into the outfield and reaches first base without a throw. But a runner on second, perhaps thinking the ball was caught, does not advance. The offensive coach would now have the option of taking the CO penalty or the results of "the play".

By the rule book definition of "a play", where was the "attempt to retire the offensive player"? The batter hit safely and the other runner never was played upon. The defense had no reasonable "opportunity to make an out". Was this a play?

Was the actual pitch itself an attempt to retire an offensive player? That won't work in relation to catcher's obstruction because the definition says "a pitch is not a play except as related to an appeal". There's was no appeal involved here- ie: the pitch cannot be considered a play.

I would have to say that the "play" refered to in the catcher's obstruction rule is NOT the same as the rule book definition of "a play". Rather, "play" is used in that rule in a generic sense, refering to "any result from the action on the pitch".

No, a checked swing is not "a play" by the definitions. Neither would be a clean base hit where the defense had no opportunity to make an out. And it can't be the pitch itself because the rule excludes that.

All I'm left with is interpreting "the result of the play" as being whatever outcome resulted from the pitched ball. And that could conceivably be just a ball added to the batter's count!