Catcher Obstruction or Batting Interference

[Clean_up]

Lefty batter swings and strikes out, hits catcher with the bat on the back swing knocking ball out of glove (slices open her arm) and runs to 1B. Catcher is unable to recover the ball due to injury. Ump rules dead ball and awards runner first base. Was this the right call?

[wadeintothem]

The only way there can be CO is when the catcher interferes with the batter trying to hit a pitched ball. Since there is no possibility of the batter hitting the ball, CO is impossible.

So thats not the case. So what is it?

This is interference. Dead ball, batter is out, any runners on would return. The batter hindered F2 from making a play (ie catching 3K and making the out).

Speaking ASA or NFHS, I would not agree with a live ball (or injury dead ball) type debate on this matter, were one to be presented.

[weekend4trvl]

I just saw what I thought was batter interference. The pitched ball is caught by the catcher , about a 1/2 second delay then the batter swings. R1 is stealing on the pitch...catcher has to wait due to the delayed swing...runner is safe at second. Is this legal ?

[Softballshouldbefun]

Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I might be)....but doesn't the catcher have to actually make a play for it to be interference? I'm not talking about the original post, but the second one where the runner is stealing and the batter swings late and blocks the throw. I always understood that if no attempt was made, that there was no call.

Just my 2 cents and it might not even be worth that

[nohesitation]

Clean up wrote:
“Lefty batter swings and strikes out, hits catcher with the bat on the back swing knocking ball out of glove (slices open her arm) and runs to 1B. Catcher is unable to recover the ball due to injury. Ump rules dead ball and awards runner first base. Was this the right call?”

Yes, I would agree with the game umpire’s call.

Wadeintothem wrote:
“The only way there can be CO is when the catcher interferes with the batter trying to hit a pitched ball. Since there is no possibility of the batter hitting the ball, CO is impossible.”

Agreed.
Wadeintothem wrote:
So thats not the case. So what is it?

This is interference. Dead ball, batter is out, any runners on would return. The batter hindered F2 from making a play (ie catching 3K and making the out).

May I humbly disagree: There is no interference, because the defensive player was not attempting to make a play at time of contact. I envoke “wreck” or incidental contact. ASA RS 13 G.
Speaking ASA or NFHS, I would not agree with a live ball (or injury dead ball) type debate on this matter, were one to be presented.

I didn’t understand what the live ball/injury dead ball debate would be, however, I would call time out , for injury, and award the runner first base.

[MTR]

Lefty batter swings and strikes out, hits catcher with the bat on the back swing knocking ball out of glove (slices open her arm) and runs to 1B.

Assuming "backswing" actually refers to the batter's follow through, this is not catcher's obstruction as the catcher did not prevent the batter from striking the ball. The batter is out.

Catcher is unable to recover the ball due to injury. Ump rules dead ball and awards runner first base. Was this the right call?

If there was a runner attempting to steal and the catcher could not make a play due to the contact by the bat, it is interference.

[ice_67]

Lefty batter swings and strikes out, hits catcher with the bat on the back swing knocking ball out of glove (slices open her arm) and runs to 1B.

Assuming "backswing" actually refers to the batter's follow through, this is not catcher's obstruction as the catcher did not prevent the batter from striking the ball. The batter is out.

Catcher is unable to recover the ball due to injury. Ump rules dead ball and awards runner first base. Was this the right call?

If there was a runner attempting to steal and the catcher could not make a play due to the contact by the bat, it is interference.

MTR,

Do you have a rule number for your decision. I just doesn't make sense to me to have batter interference. I can't see a batter having to stop her swing so she doesn't hit a catcher on her follow through.

[Clean_up]

Batter swung on a change-up and missed the ball. Catcher caught the ball. Batter brings her bat back quickly and strikes the catcher on her arm, slicing it open and causes the catcher to drop the ball. No one on first base, batter runs to first as if this was a drop-third strike. Ump calls dead ball and awards runner safe at first.

Catcher did not obstruct the batter in her attempt to hit the ball, it was a clean miss and catcher caught the ball. It was the act of the batter bringing her bat backwards after her swing that caused the injury and the ball to dislodge from the catcher's glove.

I personally thought it was batter interference with a putout by the catcher on the strike out, I assume the umpire didn't see the actual contact on the back swing and that he assumed the injury occurred with the actual swing but I cannot be certain. This particular umpire, although very nice, didn't know that a bunted ball in front of the plate, but inside the batters box was a fair ball so he might not have been clear on the rules for Batter Interference, but his ruling was Catcher Obstruction.

[wadeintothem]

May I humbly disagree: There is no interference, because the defensive player was not attempting to make a play at time of contact. I envoke “wreck” or incidental contact. ASA RS 13 G.
[/color]

RS 13 G does not apply to this situation. I'm really not sure how reading that you could even stretch it to apply to this situation.

I was hoping to get through this debate without opening the ole book..but i'll give you the others the number.

So here goes the rule numbers supporting my (&MTR's) correct ruling:
A batter actively hindering the catcher from making a play is INT and the batter is out. ASA 7.6.Q.

Consider this, if it were legal to hit the catcher with the bat to prevent them from catching the ball, you would see it a lot more often.

[wadeintothem]

I just saw what I thought was batter interference. The pitched ball is caught by the catcher , about a 1/2 second delay then the batter swings. R1 is stealing on the pitch...catcher has to wait due to the delayed swing...runner is safe at second. Is this legal ?

A batter hindering a catcher from throwing is INT.

That said, the play described above comes in many flavors (the fake bunt, wagging the bat in front, the hold bunt, slow draw back) and it is a had to be there judgment call as to whether it is INT. I've been in lively debates with umpires on various descriptions of plays such as yours and whether it is INT. Typically, I will fall in the non-call on the above play. But if I saw INT, I would call it. I dont think you are going to see the above called INT very often, if ever, even if an internet umpire ruling is INT. And you'll see that play at every level.