Question came up yesterday about catchers interference.
Is it an AB for batter with catchers interference?
Does it count for On Base %?
Does it count against BA?
With bases loaded is an RBI awarded?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Not being as versed in scoring rules as I am playing rules... I am under the belief that Catcher's Obstruction is scored as no time at bat and no hit for the batter, and an error on the catcher....as to OB%...I am no help....
FED gives no guidance. However, from OBR:
"In determining earned runs, the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which exclude
catcher’s interference) and passed balls,...."
From this I infer that CI is not charged as an error.
"In an inning in which a batter-runner reaches first base on a catcher’s interference, such batter-runner shall not count as an earned run should he subsequently score. The official scorer shall not assume, however, that such batter would have made an out absent the catcher’s interference (unlike, for example, situations in which a batter-runner reaches first base safely because of a fielder’s misplay of a ball for an error). Because such batter never had a chance to complete his time at bat, it is unknown how such batter would have fared absent the catcher’s interference. Compare the following examples:
(3) With two out, Abel reaches first on an error by the shortstop in misplaying a ground ball. Baker hits a home run. Charlie strikes out. Two runs have scored, but none is earned, because Abel’s at-bat should have been the third out of the inning, as reconstructed without the error.
(4) With two out, Abel reaches first on a catcher’s interference. Baker hits a home run. Charlie strikes out. Two runs have scored, but one (Baker’s) is earned, because the official scorer cannot assume that Abel would have made an out to end the inning, absent the catcher’s interference."
By inference from the bolded section, CI does not result in an at-bat and has no effect on batting average or on-base percentage. However, none of those statistics are actually defined in the rules, so who knows?
"In determining earned runs, the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which exclude
catcher’s interference) and passed balls,...."
From this I infer that CI is not charged as an error.
"In an inning in which a batter-runner reaches first base on a catcher’s interference, such batter-runner shall not count as an earned run should he subsequently score. The official scorer shall not assume, however, that such batter would have made an out absent the catcher’s interference (unlike, for example, situations in which a batter-runner reaches first base safely because of a fielder’s misplay of a ball for an error). Because such batter never had a chance to complete his time at bat, it is unknown how such batter would have fared absent the catcher’s interference. Compare the following examples:
(3) With two out, Abel reaches first on an error by the shortstop in misplaying a ground ball. Baker hits a home run. Charlie strikes out. Two runs have scored, but none is earned, because Abel’s at-bat should have been the third out of the inning, as reconstructed without the error.
(4) With two out, Abel reaches first on a catcher’s interference. Baker hits a home run. Charlie strikes out. Two runs have scored, but one (Baker’s) is earned, because the official scorer cannot assume that Abel would have made an out to end the inning, absent the catcher’s interference."
By inference from the bolded section, CI does not result in an at-bat and has no effect on batting average or on-base percentage. However, none of those statistics are actually defined in the rules, so who knows?
I always go back to the MLB rules for scoring.
10.02 says
a) The following records for each batter and runner:
(1) Number of times batted, except that no time at bat shall be charged when a player
(i) hits a sacrifice bunt or sacrifice fly;
(ii) is awarded first base on four called balls;
(iii) is hit by a pitched ball; or
(iv) is awarded first base because of interference or obstruction;
10.04 RUNS BATTED IN
A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in this Rule 10.04.
(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores
(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); ...
Rule 10.12 Errors
(c) When an umpire awards the batter or any runner or runners one or more bases because of interference or obstruction, the official scorer shall charge the fielder who committed the interference or obstruction with one error, no matter how many bases the batter, or runner or runners, may advance.
So, I'd say its an E2, no AB and if its bases loaded, they get an RBI.
10.02 says
a) The following records for each batter and runner:
(1) Number of times batted, except that no time at bat shall be charged when a player
(i) hits a sacrifice bunt or sacrifice fly;
(ii) is awarded first base on four called balls;
(iii) is hit by a pitched ball; or
(iv) is awarded first base because of interference or obstruction;
10.04 RUNS BATTED IN
A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in this Rule 10.04.
(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores
(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); ...
Rule 10.12 Errors
(c) When an umpire awards the batter or any runner or runners one or more bases because of interference or obstruction, the official scorer shall charge the fielder who committed the interference or obstruction with one error, no matter how many bases the batter, or runner or runners, may advance.
So, I'd say its an E2, no AB and if its bases loaded, they get an RBI.
JMoff,
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The italicized portions of my post above are directly from the OBR (MLB if you want to call it that) rule 10.16, as downloaded from MLB.com. 10.16 is the only place in Rule 10 where CI is mentioned, and it says that CI is excluded from errors.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The italicized portions of my post above are directly from the OBR (MLB if you want to call it that) rule 10.16, as downloaded from MLB.com. 10.16 is the only place in Rule 10 where CI is mentioned, and it says that CI is excluded from errors.
I got this from the MLB website, if you do a google search for MLB rules it will come up and you can click on the section for scoring.
An RBI is awarded for Catch int. The catcher also gets an error. any runs scored do not count against the pitchers ERA.
Too much reading to figure out OB%, but it probably would not count in the batters OB%, I HOPE. I may read this today as it is a borig day on the job. I do wish however I had a copy of Jacksa/Roder online, as it is very easy to follow. and this would be very clear.
An RBI is awarded for Catch int. The catcher also gets an error. any runs scored do not count against the pitchers ERA.
Too much reading to figure out OB%, but it probably would not count in the batters OB%, I HOPE. I may read this today as it is a borig day on the job. I do wish however I had a copy of Jacksa/Roder online, as it is very easy to follow. and this would be very clear.
3 Finger,
My reading of the context of 10.16 is that its for the purpose of computing earned runs. You exclude catcher's interference from errors when computing what would've happened without errors for the purpose of determining earned runs against. The only reason to mention it there is because you don't know what would've happened to the batter if the interference didn't happen. Every other case, where the batter puts the ball in play, you would know what would've happened so you know how to count earned runs against.
I think the tricky part is they don't differentiate between catcher's interference or any other interference in 10.02, 10.04 or 10.12. If you reached on interference, you don't get an AB. If you reached on interference and forced a runner home, you get an RBI. If you commit interference, you get an error.
If the error was catcher's interference and you want to know how many earned runs were allowed, you go to 10.16. Otherwise, there is no difference between a runner reaching for catcher's interference or any other kind of interference / obstruction.
Just my reading of it.
My reading of the context of 10.16 is that its for the purpose of computing earned runs. You exclude catcher's interference from errors when computing what would've happened without errors for the purpose of determining earned runs against. The only reason to mention it there is because you don't know what would've happened to the batter if the interference didn't happen. Every other case, where the batter puts the ball in play, you would know what would've happened so you know how to count earned runs against.
I think the tricky part is they don't differentiate between catcher's interference or any other interference in 10.02, 10.04 or 10.12. If you reached on interference, you don't get an AB. If you reached on interference and forced a runner home, you get an RBI. If you commit interference, you get an error.
If the error was catcher's interference and you want to know how many earned runs were allowed, you go to 10.16. Otherwise, there is no difference between a runner reaching for catcher's interference or any other kind of interference / obstruction.
Just my reading of it.
First, I don't think there is any question--most scorekeepers, even at the highest levels, do charge an error for CI.
However, there have been changes in the scoring rules. The section that is now numbered 10.16 used to be 10.18, and this change occurred in 2006/7. Interestingly, the rule used to say "In determining earned runs, the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which include catcher’s interference) and passed balls,....."
Now, as quoted above, "include" has been changed to "exclude". Furthermore, the entire second quotation (which deals with scoring following CI) in my above post is entirely new for the rules as released to the public in 2007. (I believe the changes were effective in spring of 2006, at least in MiLB.)
So I speculate that CI used to be included in the category of errors, and is now excluded. But that is only justified by a literal reading of the phrase "errors (which exclude catcher's interference)". If the rule said "errors (excluding CI)", then it would be consistent with your interpretation.
On the other hand, as you say, the rest of the rules don't distinguish between the various types of interference.
I can't believe I've spent the time typing this up! It is surely not very important.
However, there have been changes in the scoring rules. The section that is now numbered 10.16 used to be 10.18, and this change occurred in 2006/7. Interestingly, the rule used to say "In determining earned runs, the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which include catcher’s interference) and passed balls,....."
Now, as quoted above, "include" has been changed to "exclude". Furthermore, the entire second quotation (which deals with scoring following CI) in my above post is entirely new for the rules as released to the public in 2007. (I believe the changes were effective in spring of 2006, at least in MiLB.)
So I speculate that CI used to be included in the category of errors, and is now excluded. But that is only justified by a literal reading of the phrase "errors (which exclude catcher's interference)". If the rule said "errors (excluding CI)", then it would be consistent with your interpretation.
On the other hand, as you say, the rest of the rules don't distinguish between the various types of interference.
I can't believe I've spent the time typing this up! It is surely not very important.