Catcher's INterference

[chuktownblue]

FED. Bases loaded. 1 out. Batters steps on plate, hits catchers mitt, grounds to F4 who throws home for the fielder's choice out.

What do you call?

[Rich_Ives]

FED. Bases loaded. 1 out. Batters steps on plate, hits catchers mitt, grounds to F4 who throws home for the fielder's choice out.

What do you call?

The obstruction hapened before the illegal hit so enforce the obstruction first.

Not everyone advanced so enforce the obstruction.

Thus the illegal hit never happened.

[chuktownblue]

I was asked this and, while the result was the same, I said I'd call it dead immediately because of the illegally batted ball.

Here's the rub... if everyone advances safely (say a clean single), the CI is, by rule, ignored. But you have an illegally batted ball. You can't just ignore it as if it never happened. Which is why I'd kill it, call the reason I killed it, then call the CI. And then explain ruling to coach, which may or may not go well. :rolleyes:

[BrianC14]

I was asked this and, while the result was the same, I said I'd call it dead immediately because of the illegally batted ball.

Here's the rub... if everyone advances safely (say a clean single), the CI is, by rule, ignored. But you have an illegally batted ball. You can't just ignore it as if it never happened. Which is why I'd kill it, call the reason I killed it, then call the CI. And then explain ruling to coach, which may or may not go well. :rolleyes:

Where is it "by rule" that the CI is ignored? :confused:

[CoachJM]

Where is it "by rule" that the CI is ignored? :confused:

Brian,

6.08(c).

JM

[Rich_Ives]

Brian,

6.08(c).

JM

The OP said FED.

[ump_24]

The OP said FED.

You provided a solid answer is your first post, though I dock you a small amount of marks for lack of citation :rolleyes:

The FED angle has been addressed. I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in how this would be ruled in OBR. I'd look it up myself, but my rule and case books are at home in preparation for my move back for the summer.

[Rich_Ives]

You provided a solid answer is your first post, though I dock you a small amount of marks for lack of citation :rolleyes:

The FED angle has been addressed. I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in how this would be ruled in OBR. I'd look it up myself, but my rule and case books are at home in preparation for my move back for the summer.

In OBR you ignore the interference if everyone advances a base but then, if not, OBR has the added fun of allowing the offense the choice of the play or the penalty.

[ump_24]

In OBR you ignore the interference if everyone advances a base but then, if not, OBR has the added fun of allowing the offense the choice of the play or the penalty.

Right.

Should've clarified this to begin with: what if the batter steps out of the box to meet the criteria of an illegally batted ball and then

A) contacts F2's mitt but misses the ball

B) contacts F2's mitt but hits the ball

That's where I'm trying to go here.

[CoachJM]

The OP said FED.

Rich,

Right you are.

8-1-1e.

JM

[Rich_Ives]

Right.

Should've clarified this to begin with: what if the batter steps out of the box to meet the criteria of an illegally batted ball and then

A) contacts F2's mitt but misses the ball

B) contacts F2's mitt but hits the ball

That's where I'm trying to go here.

A) CI - gets 1st

B) If everyone advances ignore the interference - therefore I guess batter is out and runners return.

If not all advance then manager gets the interference or the play. Which would you pick, the CI or the illegally batted ball?

[chuktownblue]

If not all advance then manager gets the interference or the play. Which would you pick, the CI or the illegally batted ball?

Ahhh, when it's put like that, it sounds so simple!

[thunderheads]

Whoah! Slow down everyone .........

Ok, ....the OP says the batter steps on the plate, swings, then CI ....

Batter is out on INT? Or, ...does he have to hit the ball too, which brings the CI into play first?

I'm I understanding this?:rolleyes:

[chuktownblue]

Catcher's Interference.... DDB.

Illegally batted ball is the result of the play. Ball is now immediately dead. BR out.

Since BR and all runners have not advanced, enforce CI (BR to first), unless OC would rather accept the result of the play.

[Dean]

Whoah! Slow down everyone .........

Ok, ....the OP says the batter steps on the plate, swings, then CI ....

Batter is out on INT? Or, ...does he have to hit the ball too, which brings the CI into play first?

I'm I understanding this?:rolleyes:

The batter does not need to contact the pitched ball, on the swing, to have Catcher’s interference (obstruction.) The batter would need to make contact with the ball for him to illegally hit the ball.

So if the batter doesn’t contact the ball, you will have no illegally hit ball, and would enforce the Catcher’s interference. That part is simple.

If there is contact and at least one of the runners (inclusive of the batter-runner) fails to gain at least one base, is the illegally batted ball enforced or the catcher’s interference?

If there is contact and if all of the runners (inclusive of the batter-runner) gain at least one base, is the illegally batted ball enforced or the catcher’s interference?

(Of course everyone is going to see the catcher’s interference and most likely the home plate umpire is the only one who notice the batter’s foot on the plate.)

[Rich_Ives]

Whoah! Slow down everyone .........

Ok, ....the OP says the batter steps on the plate, swings, then CI ....

Batter is out on INT? Or, ...does he have to hit the ball too, which brings the CI into play first?

I'm I understanding this?:rolleyes:

I'm I understanding this?

Nope.

The OP says:

FED. Bases loaded. 1 out. Batters steps on plate, hits catchers mitt, grounds to F4 who throws home for the fielder's choice out.

[rtmueller]

batter is not out for stepping on the plate (foot entirely out of the batters box) unless he hits the ball. if while hitting the ball there is catcher's interference, then the c.i. has happened before he hits the ball.
i would put the batter on first, advance all the runners. i doubt the offensive coach would want the result of the play... batter out runners returned to bases.
have i missed something?

[Rich_Ives]

Whoah! Slow down everyone .........

Ok, ....the OP says the batter steps on the plate, swings, then CI ....

Batter is out on INT? Or, ...does he have to hit the ball too, which brings the CI into play first?

I'm I understanding this?:rolleyes:

Why would he be out on the INT?

[catoblue]

batter is not out for stepping on the plate (foot entirely out of the batters box) unless he hits the ball. if while hitting the ball there is catcher's interference, then the c.i. has happened before he hits the ball.
i would put the batter on first, advance all the runners. i doubt the offensive coach would want the result of the play... batter out runners returned to bases.
have i missed something?

+1
This is probably the cleanest response and at least in OBR, is dead-on!

[mr umpire]

The batter is out and no runners advance. Since this is FED, I don't have the wording of that rule. But, in OBR, it says the batter cannot be put out. This implies the defense cannot put the batter out. However, he is out if he does something illegal such as contact the ball while stepping on the plate in FED or has his foot entirely out of the box and touching the ground.

I have the batter out for an illegal act and no runners advance. Just b/c he is interfered with does not end his obligations to do things legally. Just like if it were a BOO after a CI. Once it is discovered, what do you do with the batter who should have been up? Can't put him on 1B b/c of the illegal act and runners can't advance on the illegal act. Same concept applies. The batter has to be legal before CI is applied.

[Brotherhood_of_Blue]

The batter is out and no runners advance. Since this is FED, I don't have the wording of that rule. But, in OBR, it says the batter cannot be put out. This implies the defense cannot put the batter out. However, he is out if he does something illegal such as contact the ball while stepping on the plate in FED or has his foot entirely out of the box and touching the ground.

I have the batter out for an illegal act and no runners advance. Just b/c he is interfered with does not end his obligations to do things legally. Just like if it were a BOO after a CI. Once it is discovered, what do you do with the batter who should have been up? Can't put him on 1B b/c of the illegal act and runners can't advance on the illegal act. Same concept applies. The batter has to be legal before CI is applied.

As referenced earlier in the post (by JM on 6.08(c) which I've listed below) the batter is NOT out for the illegal act, unless the manager has a complete mental breakdown and decides to take the result of the play, where his batter would be out on the illegal contact. In any other circumstance enforce the CI. There is no "ignore" option here since the Batter would not reach 1b.

6.08(c) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

[mr umpire]

6.08(c) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

The bolded words imply the defense can't put him out. Meaning, they can't get an out by their actions. However, the batter can be out by his own actions.

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—
(a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box.
Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out.

Still, he has to be legal before CI is applied. Which is how I (now after a discussion of this on Umpire-Empire) read it. The batter is out for his own actions b/c 6.08(c) does not excuse him from his own illegal actions.

[Rich_Ives]

The bolded words imply the defense can't put him out. Meaning, they can't get an out by their actions. However, the batter can be out by his own actions.



Still, he has to be legal before CI is applied. Which is how I (now after a discussion of this on Umpire-Empire) read it. The batter is out for his own actions b/c 6.08(c) does not excuse him from his own illegal actions.


Being out of the box on the swing is only illegal if he hits the ball.

Maybe he would have missed the ball if not for the CI.

Are you suggesting that the CI is ignored if he's interfered with while swinging and missing at a pitch while his foot is out of the box and on the ground?

[mr umpire]

Being out of the box on the swing is only illegal if he hits the ball.

Maybe he would have missed the ball if not for the CI.

Are you suggesting that the CI is ignored if he's interfered with while swinging and missing at a pitch while his foot is out of the box and on the ground?
No but in the OP, he did hit the ball. I went through that on the other site. And, as it was pointed out to me, makes the situation completely different.

[Rich_Ives]

No but in the OP, he did hit the ball. I went through that on the other site. And, as it was pointed out to me, makes the situation completely different.

Which thread on umpire-empire ? I couldn't find the one you are referencing.

[mr umpire]

Which thread on umpire-empire ? I couldn't find the one you are referencing.

http://umpire-empire.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17784

[CoachJM]

mr umpire,

Gotta disagree with you.

By your logic, if there were CI and the batter hit a little squibber up the first base line that spun back and hit him in fair territory after he had left the batter's box, you would let the play stand and call the batter out.

Since the defense did not put him out and he did something "illegal" (interfered) following the CI.

However, it is likely that the CI was a major factor in the fair batted ball hitting the batter and would not have happened absent the CI. So you would be letting the defense benefit from its illegal act.

There is no basis for your assertion that the BR must "be legal before CI is applied".

The defense interfered with the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch. Therefore, the offense gets to decide whether they want "what happened" or the CI penalty if the BR and any other runner(s) do not advance one base safely on the action following the CI.

JM

[Brotherhood_of_Blue]

The bolded words imply the defense can't put him out. Meaning, they can't get an out by their actions. However, the batter can be out by his own actions.



Still, he has to be legal before CI is applied. Which is how I (now after a discussion of this on Umpire-Empire) read it. The batter is out for his own actions b/c 6.08(c) does not excuse him from his own illegal actions.

This is all true enough but the fact is the CI happened before any illegal action by the Batter, and as Rich pointed out you can't determine if he would have missed the ball but for the CI. Enforce the penalty.

[mr umpire]

mr umpire,

Gotta disagree with you.

By your logic, if there were CI and the batter hit a little squibber up the first base line that spun back and hit him in fair territory after he had left the batter's box, you would let the play stand and call the batter out.

Since the defense did not put him out and he did something "illegal" (interfered) following the CI.

However, it is likely that the CI was a major factor in the fair batted ball hitting the batter and would not have happened absent the CI. So you would be letting the defense benefit from its illegal act.

There is no basis for your assertion that the BR must "be legal before CI is applied".

The defense interfered with the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch. Therefore, the offense gets to decide whether they want "what happened" or the CI penalty if the BR and any other runner(s) do not advance one base safely on the action following the CI.

JM

No. This would be different. This doesn't fall under 6.06 in OBR. Therefore, it is on the play and not an illegal act by the batter. It is an illegal act by a runner. There is a difference. To me, anything under 6.06(a),(b), and (d) supercedes 6.08 for penalties except 6.06(c) since that is about a play which would follow the CI.

Can't look at what might have happened. Only what did happen in most cases of the game.

[Rich_Ives]

No. This would be different. This doesn't fall under 6.06 in OBR. Therefore, it is on the play and not an illegal act by the batter. It is an illegal act by a runner. There is a difference. To me, anything under 6.06(a),(b), and (d) supercedes 6.08 for penalties except 6.06(c) since that is about a play which would follow the CI. Can't look at what might have happened. Only what did happen in most cases of the game.

Interesting that you seem to have been convinced to change your mind from conversations on the other board.

Is BrianC14 the same person on both boards? Over there he was in your camp - here he's mostly invisible except where he asked about ignoring the CI.

Most multi-foul discissions in the past have concluded that you apply them in order. I don't remember any that said to ignore a foul.

[Dano]

FED RULES.

There is only one act that supercedes another act (that I can find).

That is malicious over obstruction.

All others... FIRST ACT always supercedes second act.

[BrianC14]

Interesting that you seem to have been convinced to change your mind from conversations on the other board.

Is BrianC14 the same person on both boards? Over there he was in your camp - here he's mostly invisible except where he asked about ignoring the CI.

Most multi-foul discissions in the past have concluded that you apply them in order. I don't remeber any that said to ignoe a foul.

Yes.

So?

:confused:

[Rich_Ives]

Yes.

So?

:confused:

I just thought you'd be debating on Mr Umpire's side.

[mr umpire]

Interesting that you seem to have been convinced to change your mind from conversations on the other board.

Is BrianC14 the same person on both boards? Over there he was in your camp - here he's mostly invisible except where he asked about ignoring the CI.

Most multi-foul discissions in the past have concluded that you apply them in order. I don't remeber any that said to ignoe a foul.

And, as you can see in that other thread, I did argue that way. But, after looking at how the rules are written, they SEEM to imply a difference of when a batter can/cannot be called out depending on who caused the out.

All I am looking for is a consensus and I have no problem in this situation of going with the group. However, as you can see, there isn't one except there did seem to be one on Umpire-Empire. Different boards, different consensus as I am seeing. So, I went with it and am carrying that same one. Now, at this point, I am not going to be wishy-washy about it. I am sticking with OOB call until an official interp shows otherwise.

I would agree with taking the actions in order except for how the rules imply the call should be. I can only go by how they are written unless an interp/case play shows otherwise. I will see if I can get one from Wendelstedt (for OBR, and which I probably should have done in the first place for the other thread).

[mr umpire]

I just thought you'd be debating on Mr Umpire's side.
Yeah right.

[BrianC14]

I just thought you'd be debating on Mr Umpire's side.

I would if I thought he was correct.

And what are you today, the designated shit-stirrer?

:rolleyes:

[mr umpire]

I would if I thought he was correct.


OK, why the change? Is there an interpretation to say otherwise which I am not aware of now? FED, NCAA, or OBR?

[BrianC14]

OK, why the change? Is there an interpretation to say otherwise which I am not aware of now? FED, NCAA, or OBR?

Great googley-moogley... my only previous post in this thread was to ASK a question.

At this point, that question still hasn't been answered.

[Rich_Ives]

I would if I thought he was correct.

And what are you today, the designated shit-stirrer?

:rolleyes:

Short term memory problems?? This is what you posted at umpire-empire

Regardless of the interference, the batter hit the ball while he was not legally within the confines of the box. Thus, he's out, regardless of the fact that there was INT. Look at it this way: if INT doesn't occur, he's out even if he'd hit a home run, or fly ball, or whatever. So the INT doesn't really have a bearing on the outcome of the batted ball... in other words, "he's has to be called out whether INT occurred or not."

[BrianC14]

Short term memory problems?? This is what you posted at umpire-empire

Regardless of the interference, the batter hit the ball while he was not legally within the confines of the box. Thus, he's out, regardless of the fact that there was INT. Look at it this way: if INT doesn't occur, he's out even if he'd hit a home run, or fly ball, or whatever. So the INT doesn't really have a bearing on the outcome of the batted ball... in other words, "he's has to be called out whether INT occurred or not."

Shit-stirring.

Go see what I posted on THIS thread in THIS forum. Nothing more than a question posed.

[mr umpire]

I was asked this and, while the result was the same, I said I'd call it dead immediately because of the illegally batted ball.

Here's the rub... if everyone advances safely (say a clean single), the CI is, by rule, ignored. But you have an illegally batted ball. You can't just ignore it as if it never happened. Which is why I'd kill it, call the reason I killed it, then call the CI. And then explain ruling to coach, which may or may not go well. :rolleyes:
Stated.
Where is it "by rule" that the CI is ignored? :confused:
Asked.
Brian,

6.08(c).

JM

Answered for OBR.

6.08(c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

[BrianC14]

Stated.

Asked.


Answered for OBR.


Gee, well aren't you the clever one?

And still you ignore (the root word of ignorant) that the question posed in the OP was based on a situation in FED rules.

Congrats on being what's stirred by Ives.

[mr umpire]

Gee, well aren't you the clever one?

And still you ignore (the root word of ignorant) that the question posed in the OP was based on a situation in FED rules.

Congrats on being what's stirred by Ives.
Now, you are just avoiding. Why? Different site, different users?

I ignored nothing. I put "for OBR". Gee, who is ignoring what?

[BrianC14]

Now, you are just avoiding. Why? Different site, different users?

I ignored nothing. I put "for OBR". Gee, who is ignoring what?

More classic bullspit.

Either answer the question I posed or STFU.

It's pests like you (and Ives) that drive people off sites like this.

[mr umpire]

Rich,

Right you are.

8-1-1e.

JM

Here is the other answer. However, I don't know the wording.

[CoachJM]

More classic bullspit.

Either answer the question I posed or STFU.

It's pests like you (and Ives) that drive people off sites like this.

Brian,

Your question was answered for FED in the 10th post on this thread.

Why so pissy today?

JM

[yawetag]

What's so hard about this? Just act like you didn't see the foot on the plate. CI was obvious; you're probably the only person who saw the foot. :D

[Brotherhood_of_Blue]

I'm still not getting why this is so tough. We have two things that happen. #1 is CI, I believe we all agree on that. #2 is an illegally batted ball.

Now 6.08(c) specifies what the penalties and options are for CI. A manager can choose to accept the results of the play (#1), have the penalty enforced #2, or the CI can be ignored under specific criteria.

CI happens and everybody manages to advance, BR beats out a throw at 1b "Now Coach you can accept the play, which BTW is NOT an infield single but an illegally batted ball with your batter out and runners returned, or I can enforce the CI Penalty, which would you prefer?"

And no we can't ignore it, since the B/R would never reach 1b safely due to his illegally batted ball. I don't see where further case plays or interpretations are going to make it any clearer for something that might happen once in a lifetime.

[sdix00]

Sorry if I missed this, but I have a problem with calling CI on any batter that steps out of the box. Could the batter then simply take a step out of the box directly toward the catcher and hit him on the head and expect a CI call?

Probably not documented properly, but isn't this an easy one?

What did I miss?

[mr umpire]

I know this is old. But, I just got an interp from Wendelstedt a week ago and found the thread it related to.

The batter is only protected from catcher's interference if he is in the batter's box when it occurs. If he is out of the batter's box, there should be no penalty accessed. In addition, should he contact the ball while outside of the batter's box, he would be declared out. This can happen in a couple of ways, one more likely than the other.

1. A batter can step BACK out of the box, and contact the catcher's glove. A couple of outside clarifications. First, batters should not be allowed to initially set up outside the lines of the batter's box. Secondly, if this is an intentional act, it might require an ejection of the hitter as well.

2. A batter can step out the SIDE of the batters box (pitch out), or the front of the box (bunt), and contact the catcher's glove.

If contact is made in any of these situations, there is no CI.

It seems to me that this says "No matter what. If the batter is out of the box, CI cannot be called. If he makes no contact, then it is just a strike and dead ball. If he does, he is out and it is still a dead ball."

Am I misunderstanding this? Regardless if he hits the ball or not, batter does not go to 1B.

[heyblue26]

Brian,

Your question was answered for FED in the 10th post on this thread.

Why so pissy today?

JM

Some one took his bowl of corn flakes and so he is just a little upset he is a good guy. We all have bad days don't we I do. I just couldn't let this go. Fun intended.