Catchers Interference?

[GRADIEGO]

What’s the call?

batter shows bunt and as the pitch nears home plate she pulls the bat back in a long motion. As she is pulling the bat back she makes contact w/ the catchers glove.

It appears that the batter was attempting to block the view of the catcher as runner at 1B attempted to steal 2B.

is it catchers obstruction? /edit

 

[Crabby_Bob]

This could be "no pitch" if contact happens before F1 begins the pitch, could be batter's interference if this is judged to be an attempt to hinder or impede F2, or it could be catcher's obstruction if it impedes the batter's attempt to contact the ball. This is why you get paid the big bucks.

It is never catcher's interference.

 

[EdLovrich]

It COULD be catcher's obstruction as noted above (the reason is can NEVER be catcher's interference is that terminology no longer exists in softball).IF AND ONLY IF, the contact happened IN the strike zone (i.e. over the plate) as a result of the catcher coming up early due to the combination of shown bunt and steal. More likely, is interference on the batter (the if and only if is because you stated the batter was already drawing the bat back, thus abandoning her attempt to hit the ball).

 

[jackfrost]

It COULD be catcher's obstruction as noted above (the reason is can NEVER be catcher's interference is that terminology no longer exists in softball).IF AND ONLY IF, the contact happened IN the strike zone (i.e. over the plate) as a result of the catcher coming up early due to the combination of shown bunt and steal. More likely, is interference on the batter (the if and only if is because you stated the batter was already drawing the bat back, thus abandoning her attempt to hit the ball).

I may be misreading your comment but catcher's obstruction is not limited to "in the strike zone"

 

[EdLovrich]

As described, the player was no longer attempting to strike at the ball. Therefore, catchers obstruction would not apply to any contact UNLESS is occurs within the area of the strike zone. (The thought process being that even if the bat is being drawn back, while it is in the strike zone, that area "belongs" to the batter, since the definition of an 'attempted bunt' states that in order to take the pitch the bat must be withdrawn. Therefore, if it has not been withdrawn (i.e. it is out of the strike zone) then it is still an attempted bunt and any contact would be catcher's obstruction.

 

[The Man In Blue]

What code?

There is NO way it is catcher's obstruction if the bat is coming backwards. Using NFHS language, catcher's obstruction: "... obstructs, hinders or prevents the batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball."

NFHS Baseball has specific language on "backswing interference" (bat makes contact during "practice swing" before the pitch) and "follow through" interference (contact with the catcher after the swing). Softball does not. Just "... obstructs, hinders or prevents the batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball." I'd say that's impossible if the bat is going away from the pitch.

As described, I could potentially have interference on the batter. However some of the OP doesn't make sense to me -- did the bat not go back to the batter's shoulder, but instead lingered over the plate or was literally drawn backwards into the catcher (more like a swing than a bunt)?

Not sure what @EdLovrich is referencing. I am not aware of any language about the ball being in the strike zone.

 

[kennykozman!!]

We all know the drawing back of the bat is to keep the catcher back protecting the attempted steal. This has gone on for decades but I see it much less these days.

If the bat comes back into the catchers box we may have interference on the batter and the runner may be out...........certainly subjective.
If so the runner attempting to steal would be out.


If the bat stays in the strike zone and catcher comes up with glove or body and makes contact what is the call? I cant call catchers obstruction on a batter clearly not attempting to hit the ball. No way I can award 1st base without a swing.

You guys see it another way??

 

[289nate]

Umpires judgment plan and simple.

 

[SoulFY]

The times I have seen it and called the batter out for interference is always on a steal and the batter shows bunt early and draws the bat not up but directly back into the catcher and actually hitting her glove. The very first time I called it the batter actually stuck the bat into her glove and took it off her hand.

Coach wasn't very happy and his explanation was it was a plan play to distract the catcher. Well thanks for letting me know it was on purpose haha. Told him you actually think it's okay to have your batter pull off the catchers glove when there are runners on base and stopping her from catching the ball?

Ended up having to restrict him to the dugout

 

[EdLovrich]

Not sure what @EdLovrich is referencing. I am not aware of any language about the ball being in the strike zone.

'Not the ball, but the bat. If the bat is still within the strike zone, it has not been withdrawn. If it has not been withdrawn, then it is still as attempted bunt. if it is an still an attempted bunt, the it is catchers obstruction, n'est-ce pas?