How do you score a catcher's interference play in the book? I'm trying to settle an argument between some friends. Is it a 1-for-1? E2? No at-bat?
--------------------------
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Read OBR 10.02a(1). Here's an excerpt:
....no time at bat shall be charged when a player
...... (iv) is awarded first base because of interference or obstruction;
So, it's not an at-bat.
Now, is it an error? 10.12 (a) lists actions which are errors. CI doesn't appear in the list. On the other hand 10.12 (d) lists ways in which no error is charged even though the batter was awarded 1st base. CI isn't in that list either.
In the rule concerning earned runs (10.16), the following phrase occurs:
the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which exclude catcher’s interference) and passed balls,.... [The rule used to say until a few years ago "includes CI".]
I think that we can infere from the above phrase that CI is not an error, but I'm sure others will disagree.
....no time at bat shall be charged when a player
...... (iv) is awarded first base because of interference or obstruction;
So, it's not an at-bat.
Now, is it an error? 10.12 (a) lists actions which are errors. CI doesn't appear in the list. On the other hand 10.12 (d) lists ways in which no error is charged even though the batter was awarded 1st base. CI isn't in that list either.
In the rule concerning earned runs (10.16), the following phrase occurs:
the official scorer shall reconstruct the inning without the errors (which exclude catcher’s interference) and passed balls,.... [The rule used to say until a few years ago "includes CI".]
I think that we can infere from the above phrase that CI is not an error, but I'm sure others will disagree.
For the first time in recorded history, I'm going to humbly disagree with 3Finger...
If you consider CI to be a form of interference, then you could infer from 10.12 (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.
The rule quotes about CI are sparse, but I think I've been burned on this call before. It's just another form of interference, except that the batter doesn't get charged with an AB because he never had the opportunity to resolve his AB (i.e. he never had the opportunity to put the ball in play fairly). Although from 10.22 (a) you could infer the batter should be charged with a plate appearance for the purposes of computing OBP.
The only time a batter's results should be scored as an AB on CI is if the ball is put in play and the offense ellects to take the result of the play instead of the CI. Then you score as if the CI never happened.
For earned runs, OBR basically says if the batter/runner reaches on CI, he isn't an earned run, but you likewise can't assume he would've been an out. He's basically a 'nothing'. Rule 10.16 has some details under a.2 - a.4
If you consider CI to be a form of interference, then you could infer from 10.12 (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.
The rule quotes about CI are sparse, but I think I've been burned on this call before. It's just another form of interference, except that the batter doesn't get charged with an AB because he never had the opportunity to resolve his AB (i.e. he never had the opportunity to put the ball in play fairly). Although from 10.22 (a) you could infer the batter should be charged with a plate appearance for the purposes of computing OBP.
The only time a batter's results should be scored as an AB on CI is if the ball is put in play and the offense ellects to take the result of the play instead of the CI. Then you score as if the CI never happened.
For earned runs, OBR basically says if the batter/runner reaches on CI, he isn't an earned run, but you likewise can't assume he would've been an out. He's basically a 'nothing'. Rule 10.16 has some details under a.2 - a.4
Yeah, 10.12c plainly states it is an error, and I'll concede that beats an inference from 10.16.
I've been burned by this one before, doing the same search.
If you search on catcher's interference, you only get a few references, but it's really only a "slightly different" form of regular interference.
Somebody pointed out my folly in a previous thread and I'd almost bet it was 3Finger, but maybe not. My memory isn't so good these days.
The only major difference is how you score the hitter's PA, which is 1, but nothing else in the hitting department (no AB, H, etc) and the weird way its handled in computing earned runs (batter basically doesn't count).
Frankly put, CI is best explained when it never happens, so tell all those catchers to back up just a little bit and we'll never have to speak of this again.
If you search on catcher's interference, you only get a few references, but it's really only a "slightly different" form of regular interference.
Somebody pointed out my folly in a previous thread and I'd almost bet it was 3Finger, but maybe not. My memory isn't so good these days.
The only major difference is how you score the hitter's PA, which is 1, but nothing else in the hitting department (no AB, H, etc) and the weird way its handled in computing earned runs (batter basically doesn't count).
Frankly put, CI is best explained when it never happens, so tell all those catchers to back up just a little bit and we'll never have to speak of this again.
E2