Talk about blowing a critical call!

I don't know how the umpire could have blown the call, other than the catcher did not make contact, but he definitely changed his throw.

There is no requirement that contact is made for there to be interference. This was really a horrible non call.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
There is no requirement that contact is made for there to be interference. This was really a horrible non call.

I didn't see the game...did the defensive skipper express his displeasure at this horrible non-call?

He sure did. Leggett was out immediately, and the Clemson catcher was also asking for the call. The commentators showed the replay, and said basically: "Yup, anytime the batter goes over the plate during the throw, that is interference."

I see that alot in college games with no call. Some teams appear to almost always step accross the plate on a swing and miss when the runner is going. Interfernce is rarly called.

You've probably watched more college games than me, but you are saying that a batter swings, his momentum takes him over the plate, and he continues over the plate and runs toward his dugout as the catcher is throwing, and that is rarely called interference?

Well Rob you're not going to like what I got to say but I think it was a good non-call. I didn't see where what the batter did changed what the catcher did at all. The catcher didn't even attempt to make a throw until the batter had made it all the way to the LH batter's box.

When I first saw it I thought it would be called interference but on replay I don't think it was.

Be careful on what commentators say as well. Not sure if you caught it or not but early in the game (around first or second inning) Sean McDonough said something completely stupid. Two outs and two strikes on the batter and the ball is in the dirt and the catcher scoops it. Runner takes off for first and catcher hops out and makes a throw to first. McDonough said something along the lines that it was a foul tip and therefore the catcher has to make a throw. He was completely wrong in that one.

I am not saying their momentum carries them accross the plate. I am saying they step in front of the catcher on purpose...for the most part as their momentum rarely seems to take them accross the plate when they swing and miss with no runners on..

Well in this case the batter stepped and continued straight across the plate. I don't think it even matters if the catcher had to change what he was doing - although in this case, it would be hard to argue that the batter didn't change his throw given that it was quite wild.

I also disagee that the catcher waited until the batter was all the way to the LH batter box before throwing the ball. I replayed it several times (the magic of DVR) because I wanted my son to see it.

If this is not interference it is hard to see what it might be.

Sure, commentators often make mistakes. But their comments were hardly what I relied upon to conclude that this was an open shut case of interference.

How can a batter run straight across the throwing lane and it not be interference?

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly the runner didn't take off on the pitch in a steal attempt. The catcher didn't really wait on the hitter to cross in front of him. The batter had passed through and that's when the catcher reacted to the runner and threw it. On the replay from behind the catcher it looked to me as if he had a clear throwing lane when he did throw it. I'm no expert in the rule but the way I understand it the batter doesn't HAVE to stay in the box but he cannot change or affect the catchers throw. So him coming across the plate isn't against the rules but if he had affected the throw (differing views here) then it would be interference. Hopefully one of the umps will come back and explain that part of the rule for us.

Do you know of anyplace to see a replay of it? Only thing ESPN is showing is World Cup stuff. ESPN News just showed the highlights of the CWS and both games took less than 1 minute.

I would like to see it again but I still think it was a good no call.

CollegeParent I have seen it many times in the college game as well. In fact I saw it a couple of times in our Sunday game with Va Tech. Hit and run both times batter swings to protect runner and leans out over the plate and the catcher is obstructed just enough to throw off his timing on the throw. Neither time is was called and it was obvious obstruction. I witness several of these on hit and runs and full count steal attempts this season alone.

I know in fact that some programs instruct their players to lean out over the plate because they are more than likely not going to get it called.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:

I know in fact that some programs instruct their players to lean out over the plate because they are more than likely not going to get it called.

I know some who do as well. As you know, it is umpire judgement as to whether the batter's actions interfered. I believe it to be the most undercalled infraction in baseball. I call it at least 5-6 times a season in college ball alone. Perhaps that's why I haven't made it beyond Regionals.

It's funny how many different ways this play has been interpreted in the last six hours yet the umpire has to make the call in a split second.

Coach2709 -
I don't know where you might be able to see a replay, but I did view it several times. The runner took off on the pitch, and the hitter was still over the plate as the catcher threw the ball. He was on the left side of the plate, but still over the throwing lane.

i did not see this play so i can't comment on it but my son is a catcher in hs and i have always told him to make contact with th batter on the throw if he thinks it is going to be interfence

Well I saw what I saw and I think it was a good no call. I guess we will agree to disagree

I didn't see the play but BI is not called nearly as much as it happens. I am constantly on my guys to get it called correctly. Intention has nothing to do with it, there doesn't have to be contact, it only has to impede the catcher. If he comes up to throw and hitches, takes an extra step, anything out of the ordinary because of the batter then call him out.

MST let me ask you this - as the batter is falling across the plate and the catcher makes no attempt to throw UNTIL after he has another throwing lane then would that be BI? This is what I saw live and on the replay. I could be wrong but I feel pretty confident in what I saw.

I really wish we could find a link to this play because it truly is one you have to see. You got two guys in here that see it totally different ways and I feel both of us are very knowledageble in baseball. I've been coaching for 17 years successfully and every post Rob makes that I read is very knowledgeable but we're on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

Plus I hope everyone realizes that I'm not trying to turn this into a blankity blank contest. I respect Rob and his knowledge of the game. I just don't see it as he did which in the grand scheme of life is ok.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
MST let me ask you this - as the batter is falling across the plate and the catcher makes no attempt to throw UNTIL after he has another throwing lane then would that be BI? This is what I saw live and on the replay. I could be wrong but I feel pretty confident in what I saw.

I really wish we could find a link to this play because it truly is one you have to see. You got two guys in here that see it totally different ways and I feel both of us are very knowledageble in baseball. I've been coaching for 17 years successfully and every post Rob makes that I read is very knowledgeable but we're on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

Plus I hope everyone realizes that I'm not trying to turn this into a blankity blank contest. I respect Rob and his knowledge of the game. I just don't see it as he did which in the grand scheme of life is ok.

I have to see an attempt by the catcher before calling BI. Basic fundamental I learned at proschool, there has to be interference to call interference.

Here is what I see from the catchers perspective. Some guys come out to throw and see the batter leaning over the plate and hesitate , try to slide around the batter , try to get a clear lane and sometimes never attempt the throw. Or make the throw after the hitter clears which leads to exactly what the hitter is trying to accomplish. Sometimes they come out hesitate slightly and then attempt the throw as the batter then avoids contact. And sometimes there is contact.

For me no attempt is the catcher not coming up to throw. Just catching the ball and then throwing back to the pitcher. An attempt to me would be the attempt to come out and then having to make some type of change in his mechanics to make the throw because the batter was obstructing his ability to make an attempt. Of course its a judgement call.

On inside pitches or pitches inside off the plate I believe its the catchers job to make the needed adjustment to clear and throw provided the batter holds his ground as I think he should. On a pitch over the plate and especially outside if the batter is leaning over the plate, crossing over the plate etc and the catcher has to change his mechanics to clear a lane to throw, has to hesitate for the hitter to clear, then that is obstruction in my view.

I dont think the catcher has to actually make a throw in order for it to be called. He shouldn't have to. Having your throwing hand come down across a bat or having your shoulder injured by having your arm slam down on a hitter as your attempting a throw can lead to some serious injury for the catcher. As long as he is attempting to come out to make a throw and he is obstructed from doing so warrants the call imo.

When a pitch is over the plate or outside there is no reason for the hitter to be in any posistion to obstruct other than the fact he is attempting to throw off the catchers mechanics just enough to gain an advantage for his runner. JMO

quote:

Plus I hope everyone realizes that I'm not trying to turn this into a blankity blank contest. I respect Rob and his knowledge of the game. I just don't see it as he did which in the grand scheme of life is ok.

Coach: I certainly realize this! You ask a good question here. I am pretty sure that the answer to it would be "yes."

That is, if the batter was in the way, and the catcher adjusts his regular motion to find a lane to throw (even if that adjustment is just waiting until he gets out of the way) then I think that is interference.

What I saw was the catcher going to throw, the batter moving across the throwing lane, the catcher both waited a beat and slightly moved to his left to make the throw.

What made it odd there was no call was that the batter ran entirely across the plate and exited the other side while the catcher was throwing. He didn't just lean in, or swing and have his momentum take him partially over the plate. His momentum took him completely across the plate and out the other side.

.

"His momentum took him completely across the plate and out the other side."

This happens to me all of the time at...







.

There is an old latin phrase that translates to "the law does not require a futile act." The same principal should certainly apply to the baseball rule book.

Hey Rob, sorry I'm late to this thread, but here's what I saw on that play. The pitch came on a 3-2 count, and the batter was hoping he had checked his swing. So he crossed the plate in order to head to first on a walk. But the umpire said strike three, which was the proper call. But I don't believe the batter was attempting to interfere. He was trying to convince the ump he had held up and drawn a walk. Just my two pennies worth.