Stealing home

always wondered this myself...gonna have to find a clip of that play, sounds crazy!

And with a 1-2 count, what if the hitter swings at any close strike that could be painful for the runner.

Doctor- I'm pretty sure hitter had to be taking even with two strikes, but he could have easily tapped catcher in back once he saw catcher on top of plate.

Here's what Augie said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY0_jeOUB6Q

Here is the actual play, pretty sweet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiCgJpcHXdM

That is vintage!

If the catcher is out far enough (I didn't watch the play), its going to be CI even without a swing.  That would be really rare.

Otherwise call the pitch the best as we can

I was not able to see the replay slowed down, I was watching it live.  Now that CatsPop posted the YouTube link, it shows the play much clearer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiCgJpcHXdM

If interference is automatic if the catcher is in front of the plate, then it should have been called...by looking at the video, he is clearly in front of the plate.  Maybe it was not called because the runner was safe, but I don't see any hand gesture or any indication from PU that he had that.  Also, I am not sure why they did not question the Strike / Ball call more.  Skip Johnson (pitching coach) did come out to ask what the call was on the pitch, but it was like everyone (including PU) forgot about the pitch, and focused on the safe / out call instead.  The replay looks like the pitch was "center cut" strike!

Strange play.  Not sure many umpires have that play occur often enough to be ready for it. 

If I'm not wrong there is no interference call without actual interference.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but if there is catcher interference on this then it's a dead ball, runner back to third and batter gets first.  While there's no way in the world you will ever teach a catcher to know to do this in this situation but the interference works out best for the defense

Coach2709 - maybe Matt or someone else will chime in with more knowledge, however the way I understood the rule, is if any defensive player (catcher) with a squeeze, or steal of home plate, steps on the plate, or crosses the plate - WITHOUT the ball in possession, constitutes a balk, not CI.  CI only would come into play had the batter made contact with the catcher, then I think you are correct, batter gets first, and runner trying to steal goes back home, but without contact, I think you have a balk.

Since the balk was not called, I am still puzzled how the pitch being called a "ball" was not argued more, especially since the catcher clearly came out of the box to catch the ball.  Looked like a strike to me, which would have ended the game if the missed balk call stood.  Lot's going on!

7.07
If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

Edit:  looked at the 7.07 rule again, and looks like even if batter would have swung, then still a balk, and not CI...I think?

I'm not an ump, but I think you are right Freddy.  I think it is likely you had CI, and balk. May have been different outcome with run scored, and runners at first and third.

Not sure how anyone could possibly argue it was a strike....the ball never got to the plate and the batter had no opportunity to swing without killing the catcher.

Buckeye:  then how can you call it a ball?

Edit:  I agree the catcher came out of box.  Only CF view showed where pitch was, but same blocked view can be applied to "how can you call ball"?

I believe you're right - totally forgot about this.

Thanks

From the April 6, 2011 Coordinators' Conference Call:

"Catcher stepping on or in front of home plate to receive a pitch in his attempt to put out a runner stealing home before the batter has an opportunity to swing. 

a. Treat as catcher’s interference. A balk is charged to the pitcher, the ball is dead, the run is scored and the batter is awarded first base on the interference."

There's ambiguity in the rulebook due to the AR clarifying when to call it on a swing (they say it should only be called on a batter's actual attempt to swing, but they're just trying to differentiate between that and a warmup or backswing.) Thus, this interpretation.

Careful, guys. That's OBR, not NCAA. In this case, the ruling is the same, but that's not always going to happen.

None the less, that gutsy steal home call just stole my heart! I'm a UT guy, wife... TT. We both appreciated this particular play.

Anybody who could confirm or deny this info?? I mainly worried about Fed honestly, but curious overall. This almost came into play in a game of ours and I can't find anything definitive. I've searched already.

Thought this was in the umpire forum. Not sure how to get it moved...

The "Coordinators Conference Call" is an NCAA thing, not a HS thing.  I'm certain that if Matt posted it, it's real (but I didn't go to the NCAA site to check.)

And, in FED, if the catcher reaches over or in front of the plate, it's CI. 

Now, is the umpire going to drop a plumb line to see if the glove got over the plate?  No.  But, if it's obvious, then it's going to be CI.

So if it's catcher's interference, run scores? Or R3 returns to 3rd base?

If he returns, why would I not teach CI as as squeeze defense? That's where I'm going with all of this...

In all codes:  Run scores, Batter awarded first, any runners who are forced advance.

Plus:

In FED -- any other runners stealing are also awarded a base.

In NCAA and OBR -- the play is *also* a balk (special to CI on a squeeze / steal of home), so ALL runners advance a base (okay -- it might not technically be a balk in NCAA, but the ruling is the same)

(Note:  those last two points only come into play when there's an R2, no R1, and R2 is NOT stealing on the squeeze)

Awesome. Thanks for that.