Catcher Obstruction or foul ball

[Chris8]

Catcher is set up really close to batter. Batter swings and makes contact with the ball resulting in a foul ball. The catcher reaches in to catch the pitch and the batter hit the catchers mitt as well as fouling off the pitch.

I called time and asked the PU. He told me that because the batter fouled the ball it was a foul ball. I asked if the bat hit the catchers mitt. He confirmed it did but ruled it a foul ball not catchers obstruction. His reasoning...the bat also hit the ball....

Correct call?

I don't believe this is a protest situation either.... Result of the play didn't matter runner eventually got on base and we won the game so it didn't affect the outcome of the game. I'd like to know if the call was correct.

 

[jackfrost]

Wrong call. It is protestable since it is a rule challenge not a judgement challenge. Umpire acknowledged bat hit the glove. Therefore it is catcher's obstruction by rule. On cather's obstruction it is delayed dead ball. If batter/runner and all other runners do not advance 1 base, the offensive coach gets a choice of the play [foul ball in this case] or putting batter on 1st base and advancing only the runners who are forced to advance. [USA softball it is Rule 7.1.D & Rule Supplement 36]

 

[The Man In Blue]

I’m assuming the batter contacted the catcher’s mitt first and then fouled the pitch off. In that case, jackfrost has your answer. It may have been fouled off, but that contact altered the swing.

However ... if the pitch was fouled off and then the bat and mitt made contact on the follow through, then your PU was correct.

The order you wrote that in has me guessing, but I’m guessing it was really the first situation.

 

[Chris8]

I’m assuming the batter contacted the catcher’s mitt first and then fouled the pitch off. In that case, jackfrost has your answer. It may have been fouled off, but that contact altered the swing.

However ... if the pitch was fouled off and then the bat and mitt made contact on the follow through, then your PU was correct.

The order you wrote that in has me guessing, but I’m guessing it was really the first situation.

It was not on the follow thorough.

Mitt then ball... but PU told me it didn't matter since it was foul....my disagreement was that bat hit mitt....obstruction.... then ball fouled. Contact with the ball was not a factor since mitt was hit first.

I got smarter on this issue today. Thanks for the clarifications.

 

[djcarter1966]

Yeah your initial post was a little confusing if it was mitt then ball then its catchers interference

 

[CoachJD]

Just for clarification of terms, it's "catcher's interference" (not obstruction) when the bat hits the mitt. Doesn't change the discussion here, but if you ever need to discuss it with an umpire, it's probably best to use the correct terms.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Uh ...

Not saying there isn’t a rule set that says that ... but everything I work is:

Interference is caused by the offense. Obstruction is caused by the defense.

 

[Chris8]

Just for clarification of terms, it's "catcher's interference" (not obstruction) when the bat hits the mitt. Doesn't change the discussion here, but if you ever need to discuss it with an umpire, it's probably best to use the correct terms.

Coach JD.... I totally get what you are saying....I like to be accurate/correct in my terminology....I used to call it CI.....

See this post...lots of discussion about CI vs CO...

CAther Interference

rec game the other night, catcher set up very close to batters. couple of times, swing hit the mitt, umpire called foul ball. several of us pointed out that bat hit the mitt. he says 'she (catcher) is behind the line, so no interference" first, the only line was a line this catcher drew in...

www.discussfastpitch.com

I've seen here the respected umpire folks refer to it as Obstruction. Offense interferes...and Defense obstructs.

I'd like to get it right.

 

[CoachJD]

Coach JD.... I totally get what you are saying....I like to be accurate/correct in my terminology....I used to call it CI.....

See this post...lots of discussion about CI vs CO...

CAther Interference

rec game the other night, catcher set up very close to batters. couple of times, swing hit the mitt, umpire called foul ball. several of us pointed out that bat hit the mitt. he says 'she (catcher) is behind the line, so no interference" first, the only line was a line this catcher drew in...

www.discussfastpitch.com

I've seen here the respected umpire folks refer to it as Obstruction. Offense interferes...and Defense obstructs.

I'd like to get it right.

Yes, in most cases offense interferes and defense obstructs. But in this case, it's Catcher's Interference. It's even an actual stat.

MLB refers to it as Catcher's Interference: mlb.com/glossary/rules/catcher-interference

 

[WVSteven]

Every time I have seen an rule regarding this infraction it is stated that the catcher obstructs the batter's attempt to strike or tap the ball or something along those lines. The definitions of the terms include for Interference, offensive and for obstruction, defensive. I have never seen it referred to as catcher's interference in a rule book. (Limited to USA and NFHS, I admit)

We are talking about softball, not MLB, it's a totally different animal. You will also find in their rulebook the term balk, that does not exist in softball. Neither does catcher's interference, it's catcher's obstruction because the catcher is on defense and the defense obstructs, only the offense can interfere officially in softball.