Catcher's Obstruction?

[wcgfastpitch]

What is the call? R1 on 1st and the batter is executing a fake bunt with the pitch in flight towards the plate the batter pulls the bat back and the bat comes in contact with the catcher. This all happens very quickly. What is the right call from an umpires perspective?

[Comp]

Its not catchers obstruction unless the batter is attempting to hit the pitch. Withdrawing the bat is not an attempt to strike at the ball.

If the batter was simply pulling the bat back normally and the catcher had moved forward slightly sensing a possible steal, I have nothing. But, I have seen a trend lately where batters have been taught to purposely draw the bat back directly into the catchers face in a long arcing motion to try and distract the catcher. If the batter were to do this, I have interference on the batter, dead ball, batter out.

[MTR]

Its not catchers obstruction unless the batter is attempting to hit the pitch. Withdrawing the bat is not an attempt to strike at the ball.

While I don't disagree with this, just because a batter pulls a bat back does not mean they are forfeiting their right to hit the ball. Of course, it is HTBT as the umpire must make the judgment on the action.

[wcgfastpitch]

What does the rule book state about this situation?

[Comp]

Its rather long to type the whole rule, but its ASA 8-1-D (1-4) if you have access to a rule book.

But the main section of the rule dealing with this situation is D, "When a catcher obstructs a batter's attempt to hit a pitched ball."

Generally speaking, withdrawing the bat is just that and is not an attempt to hit the pitch. To go along with what MTR said above, in some cases the batter may show bunt, pull back and then swing, but it would ultimately be the umpires judgement as to if it were an attempt to hit the pitch or was simply withdrawing the bat.

[HugoTafurst]

And that is why we get the big bucks!
Keeping in mind what has been said, there is no ONE answer. Too many "if's" that the Plat Umpire needs to be watching.
That having been said, I think I generally give the benefit of the doubt to the batter.
And THAT having been said, I also am always looking to make sure it is not an "intentional" act of interference by the batter.

Such hard work!!

[playball13]

If there was a base runner and they were stealing would you have INT on the batter?

[Comp]

If there was a base runner and they were stealing would you have INT on the batter?

Another would have to see it play. If the catcher hadnt left their initial position and I felt the batter drew the bat back into the catcher, I may rule interference. If the catcher moved up and got into the batters vacinity anticipating the steal, I probably have a dumb move on the catcher and have no call on it.

[tcannizzo]

If there was a base runner and they were stealing would you have INT on the batter?

Another would have to see it play. If the catcher hadnt left their initial position and I felt the batter drew the bat back into the catcher, I may rule interference. If the catcher moved up and got into the batters vacinity anticipating the steal, I probably have a dumb move on the catcher and have no call on it.

Not sure I can go along with this.
a.) If B drew the bat back into F2, there is no question - DB INT!
b.) If F2 moved up into B vacinity to make an attempt to retire R, why is this DMC? F2 has every right to go wherever she needs to in order to make the play. If B actively hinders F2 it is DB INT every time.

[Comp]

F2 does not have the right to "go wherever she needs" to make the play. F2 cannot catch the pitch before the batter has had the opportunity to hit it, or it is in fact catchers obstruction.