Catcher Obstruction or Batting Interference

[nohesitation]

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.

I will admit rule RS13 G is not definitive in it self for this play. The reason I don’t see it as interference is because the catcher is not attempting to execute a play at the time of contact. The catcher is not attempting a play by catching a pitched ball, because a pitch ball is not considered a play. I know that sounds bizarre but I didn’t write the book. The way the play was described the bat must hit the glove at the same time as the catch. That is why ASA RS 13 G. Rule 7 6 Q is intended for those cases where the batter in the box is actively preventing a catcher from throwing a runner out. But I would not call interference unless the catcher made some attempt to throw the ball. I see that rule as weak in this case because it relies on the rules of interference for its foundation. The rules of interference are not satisfied.

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.

Maybe the catcher should back up a little a let the batter finish her swing.

[wadeintothem]

I will admit rule RS13 G is not definitive in it self for this play.

it doesnt apply at all.

The reason I don’t see it as interference is because the catcher is not attempting to execute a play at the time of contact. The catcher is not attempting a play by catching a pitched ball, because a pitch ball is not considered a play.

That is 100% incorrect. The catcher is absolutely trying to make a play and that is no longer a pitched ball, that is now either a caught strike for a put out or an uncaught strike and the batter runner is able to advance. How on earth could you state the catcher is not trying to make a play? That is the essence of catching a strike and putting the batter out.

I know that sounds bizarre but I didn’t write the book.

Its not about writing it, it is about reading it and understanding it.

The way the play was described the bat must hit the glove at the same time as the catch. That is why ASA RS 13 G.

Back on that again? A RS that has nothing to do with this play at all?

Rule 7 6 Q is intended for those cases where the batter in the box is actively preventing a catcher from throwing a runner out.

No its not. 7.6.P addresses that.

But I would not call interference unless the catcher made some attempt to throw the ball. I see that rule as weak in this case because it relies on the rules of interference for its foundation. The rules of interference are not satisfied.

You should read the definition of interference then.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. I'm not willing to debate this ad nauseum so have a nice day! Hopefully the OP now understands the rule and does not let your post complicate it. Two umpires have explained it now.

[nohesitation]

You should read the definition of interference then.

Interference:
The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

Play:
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.

[Clean_up]

You should read the definition of interference then.

Interference:
The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

Play:
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.

If that is indeed the case, then why do you record a putout by the catcher on a third strike caught by the catcher? And then, why is a drop-third strike a live ball? Since my daughter umpires, I have tried to stay on top of the rules as much as I can and after considering all of this, I have to agree with Wade. Thanks everyone for helping to clarify the situation....

[GIMNEPIWO]

Play:
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.[/quote]


hhmmm? just another DA Coach chimming in here ... Since the catcher wasn't "pitching" the ball but rather "catching" the ball, and the batter hit the catcher on a backswing not the follow through ... I would respectfully have to agree with Wade

[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.

And let us take one more step. If there is a runner attempting to steal, the runner closest to home is ruled out and all other runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT. All of this relies upon the umpire judging the catcher actually had the opportunity make a play on the runner. Otherwise, the runners would just be returned with no additional out recorded.