Skip to main content

33 replies

ASU / Texas Batter Interference

coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
Watching this game and had a play that I don't understand why they called what they did.

Runner on first with a 3-2 count on the batter. Runner takes off on a steal and the pitch is ball four with the hitter making a check swing. In the process of the play the catcher comes up throwing to second and the throw ends up in shallow RF which allows the runner stealing to end up at third.

Ok here's where it goes crazy. During the replay the batter takes one step towards first just before the throw by the catcher. The batter takes about 4 or 5 steps and then the plate ump starts yelling batter interference while the throw was going into RF and runner going to third. Play finally comes to a stop and everyone starts meeting to talk - umps talk to each other and individually with each coach.

The outcome was runner at first and an out called. Not sure who they called out and who was at first because the TV never said what the details were. The announcers are pretty useless (shocking I know) because they said there was no contact and that has to be there for interference. Plus said you can't have BI on a ball four.

My opinion is that there wasn't a swing and pretty obvious it wasn't. But in my opinion there wasn't BI because the catcher didn't alter his throw and replay shows he still had a window to throw even with the batter taking one step towards first. It was a small window but still there.

So with all this do you guys think you can figure out what the reasoning is for the BI? Or if that was even the call made?

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude. Thomas Jefferson

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
Did you just hear what Garrido and the announcers just said? When asked about it Garrido said that the interference took precedence over the walk.

The announcers then said the official ruling was when the batter is out of the box then it is interference whether it's intentional or unintentional.......but to discredit what he's saying he called it catcher's interference twice.

Yeah I can't wait for the real umps to fill us in.
bkekcsbkekcs500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by coach2709:
the interference took precedence over the walk.


Of course I don't know but makes no sense to me. Ball four occurred before the called interference.
Every batter that I have seen walk from the right hand batter's box always crossed in front of the plate.

The game has some funny rules and this just might be one of them.
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
I agree with you and the catcher has to know it was ball four and not throw. Granted it was made into a very complicated decision with the check swing but he should have seen that it was not a swing. Hold the ball and ask for an appeal.

It might be one of those rules that is obscure but would make sense in another situation but it just seems Texas was bailed out of a bad play.
biggerpapibiggerpapi5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by coach2709:
Hold the ball and ask for an appeal.


Isn't this one of those plays where you have to finish the play? Then, if the interference affects the play (like it might have here) then it's called.

If the catcher never made the throw, then there couldn't have been interference. Otherwise, a right handed batter interferes with the catcher EVERY time he walks.
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
I didn't see this play but I did the the balk called on TX that scored an ASU run.

First of all, I didn't see much of a balk. Secondly, the umpire waited until after the catcher caught the ball to make the call.

Don't they usually come running out from behind the plate during the pitch to call the balk?

No, he announces the balk but lets it play through to see the result. If certain exceptions aren't met then he enforces the balk. This is not true in Fed.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
To make thngs even more confusing, by definition, batter interference is an act preventing the catcher from creating an out. Yet, upon ball four, there was no out to be made at second base. At the very least, and in fairness and equity, the ruling should have been dead ball, runners on first and second. I doubt anyone would have had a problem with that under those rather unique circumstances.
Bulldog 19Bulldog 195,000+ posts
quote:
At the very least, and in fairness and equity, the ruling should have been dead ball, runners on first and second. I doubt anyone would have had a problem with that under those rather unique circumstances.


A walk isn't a dead ball. Personally it sounds like the catcher just threw the ball away and the umpire interjected to help the defense..
biggerpapibiggerpapi5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bravescoach:
To make thngs even more confusing, by definition, batter interference is an act preventing the catcher from creating an out. Yet, upon ball four, there was no out to be made at second base.


So if that's true, then shame on the catcher and he absolutely deserves the error.

I once had a less-than-bright player get called out on strike three with less than two outs and a runner on first. I guess I should give him credit for running out the dropped third strike. The catcher threw down and threw it away so the first base runner made it to third.

Umpire called the runner back for the batter "intentionally" deceiving the catcher.

I say...bad play by the catcher.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
quote:
At the very least, and in fairness and equity, the ruling should have been dead ball, runners on first and second. I doubt anyone would have had a problem with that under those rather unique circumstances.


A walk isn't a dead ball. Personally it sounds like the catcher just threw the ball away and the umpire interjected to help the defense..


I understand that a walk is not normally a dead ball situation, but under these circumstances, I feel my proposal is the most logical resolve from bot teams' standpoints...and certainly more reasonable than what they came up with.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
quote:
Originally posted by Bravescoach:
To make thngs even more confusing, by definition, batter interference is an act preventing the catcher from creating an out. Yet, upon ball four, there was no out to be made at second base.


So if that's true, then shame on the catcher and he absolutely deserves the error.

I once had a less-than-bright player get called out on strike three with less than two outs and a runner on first. I guess I should give him credit for running out the dropped third strike. The catcher threw down and threw it away so the first base runner made it to third.

Umpire called the runner back for the batter "intentionally" deceiving the catcher.

I say...bad play by the catcher.


I don't disagree, papi, but that catcher was in a tough spot. Had he held on to the ball and a third strike eventually called (via pitch or swing), his coach would have been all over him for not throwing down to second. I don't necessarily blame the catcher for his instinctual, split-second response but, instead, I blame that umpiring crew for not coming up with a more reasonable solution if, in fact, the rule book was rendered useless under the circumstances.
piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bravescoach:
I once had a less-than-bright player get called out on strike three with less than two outs and a runner on first. I guess I should give him credit for running out the dropped third strike. The catcher threw down and threw it away so the first base runner made it to third.

Umpire called the runner back for the batter "intentionally" deceiving the catcher.

I say...bad play by the catcher.


and you were right...both teams are obligated to know the situation of the game...

I did not see the play from the ASU/TEXAS game, so I really cant understand the call.....but Im sure that it will be discussed on a number of umpire only websites and I try to see what the crews call was and why it was enforced as such...
Last edited by piaa_ump
biggerpapibiggerpapi5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bravescoach:
quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
quote:
Originally posted by Bravescoach:
To make thngs even more confusing, by definition, batter interference is an act preventing the catcher from creating an out. Yet, upon ball four, there was no out to be made at second base.


So if that's true, then shame on the catcher and he absolutely deserves the error.

I once had a less-than-bright player get called out on strike three with less than two outs and a runner on first. I guess I should give him credit for running out the dropped third strike. The catcher threw down and threw it away so the first base runner made it to third.

Umpire called the runner back for the batter "intentionally" deceiving the catcher.

I say...bad play by the catcher.


I don't disagree, papi, but that catcher was in a tough spot. Had he held on to the ball and a third strike eventually called (via pitch or swing), his coach would have been all over him for not throwing down to second. I don't necessarily blame the catcher for his instinctual, split-second response but, instead, I blame that umpiring crew for not coming up with a more reasonable solution if, in fact, the rule book was rendered useless under the circumstances.



I'm sorry...let me clarify...the catcher threw to FIRST!!!!!!
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by biggerpapi:
I didn't see this play but I did the the balk called on TX that scored an ASU run.

First of all, I didn't see much of a balk. Secondly, the umpire waited until after the catcher caught the ball to make the call.

Don't they usually come running out from behind the plate during the pitch to call the balk?


I didn't see the balk until they did it slow motion and you can see that he doesn't come to a complete stop.

The link Mr. Umpire provided is the play in my opening post. I'm not sure how you would handle this situation. I don't think there was BI because the catcher had a window to throw through even with the step towards first. I think it was just a horrible throw by the catcher and the play should continue on due to the fact it's not dead ball and the runner could go past second.

I don't know but would love to the reasoning behind it.
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
quote:
I don't think there was BI because the catcher had a window to throw through even with the step towards first. I think it was just a horrible throw by the catcher and the play should continue on due to the fact it's not dead ball and the runner could go past second.

I don't know but would love to the reasoning behind it.

Was the throw bad because the catcher had to step to his right or was it just bad. We have no way of knowing so when the batter enters the catcher's throwing at all, then bang the BI.
GG Gold Glove100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
quote:
I don't think there was BI because the catcher had a window to throw through even with the step towards first. I think it was just a horrible throw by the catcher and the play should continue on due to the fact it's not dead ball and the runner could go past second.

I don't know but would love to the reasoning behind it.

Was the throw bad because the catcher had to step to his right or was it just bad. We have no way of knowing so when the batter enters the catcher's throwing at all, then bang the BI.


So now I will teach my catchers to wait until the batter crosses home plate on ball four (with a runner on first), try to make a throw to second, get BI called and eliminate the walk. Brilliant!
yawetagyawetag100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bravescoach:
I understand that a walk is not normally a dead ball situation, but under these circumstances, I feel my proposal is the most logical resolve from bot teams' standpoints...and certainly more reasonable than what they came up with.


Umpires aren't out there to make proposals. We don't always do things to make both teams happy. We're there to enforce the rules as they are written and interpreted, not to use them as we want.

The umpires screwed up the call. Plain and simple. At the end of the play, it should have been R1/R3 with no outs made on the play.
piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Gold Glove:
Where are all the umpires? If it was a chance to rip McCarver they would be all over it. Jimmy, Dash, PIA come out come out wherever you are?


Thats pretty uncalled for.....on the first page of this thread there are 3 umpires who posted.....I myself being one of them.....

My post spelled out exactly that "I had not seen the play and could not understand why it was called that way".....

Not sure what more you want from me......

You would have to be a bit more of a contributor to this site for your criticism of the umpires here to mean anything to me......
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Gold Glove:
Where are all the umpires? If it was a chance to rip McCarver they would be all over it. Jimmy, Dash, PIA come out come out wherever you are?


Well,unlike some, I like to know what the play was, what the call was and why the call was made before I act like I know what's going on. This is an odd situation. One of the umpire's who related the situation has a story that differs from the that represented by the box score.

The rule enforced is simple and I'll post the NCAA wording of it when I figure out the real call.

Patience is a virtue.

Slightly related: I'm busy right now writing my ejection report of a coach who would not accept that he was incorrect in his understanding of 8.05 (a) and was tossed after yelling: "He's gotta go home if his foot passes his knee and any umpire that doesn't call that is a F---ing idiot."
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
quote:
I don't think there was BI because the catcher had a window to throw through even with the step towards first. I think it was just a horrible throw by the catcher and the play should continue on due to the fact it's not dead ball and the runner could go past second.

I don't know but would love to the reasoning behind it.

Was the throw bad because the catcher had to step to his right or was it just bad. We have no way of knowing so when the batter enters the catcher's throwing at all, then bang the BI.


Thanks for the answer.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
The NCAA Rule:

Interference

The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder attempting to make a play.

A.R. 2 - If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to teh base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

The source I spoke with said the despite the box score, interference was called on the B/R, not the Batter. Still It appears enforcement was not handled properly. I haven't been able to reach the PU, but he may not be in the mood to talk anyway.

I think the crew screwed the pooch on this one.
TZ Team Zona100+ posts
The posted video shows that there was plenty of space to make the throw and if the 2b did make the catch he would have been able to tag the runner, but because he tried to tag too fast he missed the ball. What I have not yet seen by the umpires on the site is a definitve yes or no on the interference, I know that it is a judgement call but there is video. Is there actually interference? And if so why? Since the batter was now a B/R could there then be obstruction on the catcher since he was "in the way" of the runner trying to get to first? Yes that is a stretch, but if the runner was in the way of the catcher then it could work the other way as well. Once the interference is called is there any way to "fix" the issue? Also is this a protestable call?
N NDD100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The NCAA Rule:

Interference

The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder attempting to make a play.

A.R. 2 - If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to teh base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

The source I spoke with said the despite the box score, interference was called on the B/R, not the Batter. Still It appears enforcement was not handled properly. I haven't been able to reach the PU, but he may not be in the mood to talk anyway.

I think the crew screwed the pooch on this one.
I was watching the game and I thought the throw hit the BR in the arm or he hit it with his arm.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×