Mask in base path

quote:

Originally posted by twotex:
Here's the situation. Batter pops up, catcher fields it in front of the plate. In the midst of the play, catcher takes off his helmet and it lands in the base path (first base side). Catcher catches the ball in fair territory. Batter never moves towards first base.

Is it catcher's interference?

No. "Interference" requires interference.

quote:

Originally posted by twotex:
Here's the situation. Batter pops up, catcher fields it in front of the plate. In the midst of the play, catcher takes off his helmet and it lands in the base path (first base side). Catcher catches the ball in fair territory. Batter never moves towards first base.

Is it catcher's interference?

Only if the F2 (catcher) threw his mask and interfered with the batters (B's) attempt to strike the pitch.

Or, if upon seeing that he would not be able to throw the BR (batter runner)out "in the event" he might not make the catch, F2 uses his mask in a bolo type fashion, completlty tying the BR's feet together, you would have obstuction, if he failed to make the catch that is

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
Only if the F2 (catcher) threw his mask and interfered with the batters (B's) attempt to strike the pitch.

Or, if upon seeing that he would not be able to throw the BR (batter runner)out "in the event" he might not make the catch, F2 uses his mask in a bolo type fashion, completlty tying the BR's feet together, you would have obstuction, if he failed to make the catch that is

Not only informative but funny!

Thanks, my son is the catcher (a freshman), and there are a lot of the rules I'm still learning. When one of the opposing team's parents stated it was interference, it struck me as illogical, but I thought I would ask the experts.

quote:

Originally posted by twotex:
When one of the opposing team's parents stated it was interference, it struck me as illogical, but I thought I would ask the experts.

rule 1 to learn........parents are usually the least reliable sources of rules knowledge you can find......

piaa_ump: On your point, some of the quotes I've heard in the stands this very week:

"He didn't intentionally get in his way, so there can't be interference." Heard when a batter swung at an inside pitch and litteraly fell from the right handers batter's box to the left with a runner stealing and subsequent wild throw. Then again when a runner slid at least 10' out of the baseline to break up a double play. Parent was agruing when kid was still on the ground, which makes the argument much weaker.

"That fielder interefered with the runner while trying to make that play, he (runner)should get two bases." Short stop is camped under a pop-up, R2 plows him into the ground. Runner makes it past third before ball comes down and smelling salts arrive for the SS.

"He didn't get a glove on it, so it can't be an error". This was on a routine pop-up in the infield with two outs and nobody on. SS calls off 2B, they both call each other off six times, finally agree and then both back away. Parent wants credit for a double. No way (probably better in stats and scorekeeping, but I'm on a roll).

With no outs and R1, who is stealing on strike three in the dirt, "RUN!!! HE'S GOT TO THROW YOU OUT!!!"

I watched a 15 minute debate by the Royals commentators during the Red Sox vs. Royals game on Saturday when a Royals hitter swung at strike three, the ball hit him and they couldn't figure out why the umps called a dead ball and didn't let him attempt to run to first base.

One I did find confusing, although I was listening to it on the radio and WT (wasn't there). During Washington St. vs. Arizona St. R1, Ball bunted out in front of the plate, catcher throws wild to first, R1 scores, batter ends up at third. Post play, it's ruled batter's intereference and an out, R1 returns to first. No issue with the call, which I "assume" was running inside the line, but couldn't find a ruling on the continuation part of it in OBR. I'm assuming NCAA has something different? Commentators couldn't let go for three innings... Hard to enjoy a game when they're still talking about a play three innings later.

Actually, slow parents and slow play are the only issues we've had this year. The ocasional bad/questionable call but no wierd rules stuff. The blues have done a pretty decent job in our conference, other than slow play thing which is well documented in another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by twotex:
Not only informative but funny!

Thanks, my son is the catcher (a freshman), and there are a lot of the rules I'm still learning. When one of the opposing team's parents stated it was interference, it struck me as illogical, but I thought I would ask the experts.

As a parent...I have to agree that parents are generally the least reliable sources for rules...hopefully I'm one of those who does NOT fall into this category which is why I continue to ask and read!

BTW - a catching coach taught my son to throw the helmet
a) where he knew it would be out of HIS way and
b) where it would hopefully be in the way of a runner heading to home or first...

On another note...

At a game this week, the dugouts had a fence about 3' high across the front with a gap for players to run on and off the field. One of our team's players was standing in the gap - probably out too far, but I didn't notice...Umpire called time and told him he had to move down on the first step of the dugout...kid steps backwards...turns and looks...there are no steps in the dugout...throws up his hands and returns to his position as ump resumes game...

So these answers explain why "it is never called in this league" - the know-it-all parent's last comment after telling me it was catcher's interference. Now I know why it is never called.

I'm going to continue to keep my mouth closed and come here for the facts and the funny stories.

quote:

As a parent...I have to agree that parents are generally the least reliable sources for rules...hopefully I'm one of those who does NOT fall into this category which is why I continue to ask and read!

I think it gets better....Usually I have found that the parent base gets much more rules educated by the time their sons get to college baseball.....

Probably more a function of "weed-out" or parent "burn-out" than anything else.

LL Parents root for their kids without any regard for reality.

Watch your kid play 500-750 games and you start to appreciate the game. This includes accomplishments of the other team, good umpiring, the kid who shuts you out, pace of games, great defensive playe, etc.

The feeling that this is a 15 game season and that's the end of the career is gone doesn't apply for D1 families. To play college baseball requires a lot of "game watching", which results in a greater & deeper appreciation.

I saw a 13 YO girl make two consecutive plays at SS that could've easily made Sports Center. She dove deep the hole to cut a ball off and save a run. Next play a line drive goes up the middle and she took two steps and laid out. In real time, you would've thought she was a 20 YO Male Dominican import, it was that good. Our club team all rose for the standing ovation. She was on the other team, but even our coaches were applauding. How can you not appreciate a great play?

If you haven't seen a bunch of ball, you can't. If you have parent goggles on, you can't. It's all about the hours at the ballpark... Creates perspective.

JMoff:

I have noticed that the parents are improving as the years go by. The travel team parents seem better than the school parents - never thought about it before.

I'm only at about 150 games - I hope I have a long way to go (lots more games). It is helpful to hear from the veterans.