Catchers Interference?

[radness]

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to the batter, since the definition of an 'attempted bunt' states that in order to take the pitch the bat must be withdrawn. Therefore, if it has not been withdrawn (i.e. it is out of the strike zone) then it is still an attempted bunt and any contact would be catcher's obstruction.

1. What do you consider
Your 'area' of the strike zone'?

2. Is that 'area' only above the plate or?

3. Is that the same 'area' you would call strikes in?

 

[EdLovrich]

In NFHS it is the space over home plate which is between the batter's forward armpit and the top of the knees when the batter assumes a natural batting stance. Yes it is only above the plat, by definition. Yes, it is that space through which if any part of the ball passes in flight that would be considered a strike.

 

[radness]

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to the batter, since the definition of an 'attempted bunt' states that in order to take the pitch the bat must be withdrawn. Therefore, if it has not been withdrawn (i.e. it is out of the strike zone) then it is still an attempted bunt and any contact would be catcher's obstruction.

Just understanding your perspective here to be clear on this...

So from your previous description of the strikezone is over the plate.

If the bat started over the plate and has been drawn backwards past the pointy tip of the back of the plate...
The bat would no longer be in said strikezone area.

Is that correct description of what your observation is?

In another example

If the catchers glove never moved forward enough to be over the plate,
The catcher could not have caused obstruction.

 

[EdLovrich]

Just understanding your perspective here to be clear on this...

So from your previous description of the strikezone is over the plate.

If the bat started over the plate and has been drawn backwards past the pointy tip of the back of the plate...
The bat would no longer be in said strikezone area.

Is that correct description of what your observation is?

In another example

If the catchers glove never moved forward enough to be over the plate,
The catcher could not have caused obstruction.

In the case that we are discussing, all of this is correct to what I am saying, IF the bat is still in the strike zone (over the plate), and IF the catcher makes contact with that bat, I would have obstruction. This does not mean that a catcher's mitt NEEDS to be in the strike zone to cause obstruction during a 'normal' swing.

 

[The Man In Blue]

'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?

Well now ... that makes a heck of a lot more sense!

(Although a bat in the zone is NOT a bunt attempt in some codes -- a concept that I strongly disagree with.)