The Catcher Interference call

[Orangeblood]

Okay, so I got tired of hearing all the bitching from other fans and from Nomar.Therefore, I watched the play in slow motion on the DVR (after all, I was at the game).As the pitcher began his delivery, the runner at first broke for 2nd base on a 3-2 count. It's not unusual, but the following events are. The pitch was up and the batter checked his swing. Felts caught the ball and began his throwing motion because the runner had broken. The batter, figuring he had a walk, started across the plate and made physical contact with Felts on the tail end of the throw. That is classic batter interference.

In reply to:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

[petscii]

So what is to stop the catcher from throwing to second after every ball 4 with runners on first?

 

[YoLaDu]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[roofless]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[slappinleather]

The runner from first is what started the process! Crazy rule but the right call!!

 

[waazel]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Captain Ron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Orangeblood]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[accuratehorn]

It is a little screwy, but the runners are free to advance beyond the base the batter was awarded by the walk until time is called. Time had not been called, but interference had been called immediately by the home plate ump.
In thinking about it, I suppose the lengthy discussion was whether the walk should negate the interference call, but clearly by reading the rule, the interference would have occurred first, and time had not been called. Strange play, but correct call. Once the ump called it, he could not cancel it.

 

[Son of a Son]

As I posted in the Nomar thread, you cannot think about this play in terms of where the runner is. What if the call is a strike, the catcher has a right to throw him out. What if the runner is on second stealing third with no one on first and it's ball four, he steals, we throw but are interfered with? The batter gets first but what if the baserunner goes to second, touches it, but comes off the bag before time is called? Theoretically he could keep going to third at his own risk so our catcher would have to make a play.

You cannot legislate every single situation, otherwise the rule book would be 1600 pages and unusable. The umpire may not call that interferance if he realizes it's ball four, or he may call it anyway. Once it is called, you cannot take it back. What happened to ASU sucked, but it was 100% by rule.

 

[waazel]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[NickDanger]

The way I see the spirit behind the rule is that until time or even the pitch has been called, the catcher has the freedom to throw the ball wherever the hell he wants. Contact is irrelevant. If he's throwing it back to the pitcher or to the right fielder makes no difference if the batter interferes with the catcher's throw (again, anywhere he wants) and that interference causes the catcher's throw to be errant and THAT causes a result unintended by the catcher then the batter (who left for first before any 4th ball was called by the ump) is OUT.

I couldn't see any contact, but he clearly left for first because he JUST KNEW it was going to be called. but before the ball four had been actually called. How many times have we seen clear ball fours end up being headscratcher "called" strikes. If the runner had gone for second as this one had and the catcher had missed the throw because the batter had jumped the gun we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

It seems to me that the batter breaking to first before the ump had called ball four is the key. What's your hurry, dude? Act like you've been there before.

 

[tholly]

I can only assume that had the runner slowed after the ump called ball 4, and simply jogged into 2nd and stopped, then there would be no play at 2nd (as it was a free base) and thus no catcher interference. Similar to a batter interfering with the catcher throwing back to the pitcher. Who would be out if a runner on 3rd came home after the batter interfered with catcher simply returning the ball to the pitcher, and ball goes behind 2nd. The throw was not to get a runner out. My guess is the runner should return to his original base and the batter be out, which is what I believe should have happened here...

 

[84 Horn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Son of a Son]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[84 Horn]

If the catcher throws the ball into the stands then every runner and the batter/runner can advance to home plate.

It should not matter whether or not the defensive coach yells at the ump, or if the ball is caught at second, once batter interference is called the batter is out, the ball is dead and any base runners return to their previous base.

Batter interference can (and did) occur on ball 4 because the play is still live and the catcher has the right to place the ball anywhere in his defense he chooses to manage the game at that moment.

However I believe that if upon ball 4 the catcher turns and throws the ball away from all defensemen and into the stands or a dugout and that motion creates contact with the batter, that no batter interference would be called and runners can advance to home plate.

 

[s102r18]

The highlights video on ncaa.com shows (and replays) the play. Starts about 0:25. The commentator says interference takes precedence over the walk, then asks "was it (the interference) a good call?" He answers his own question "it didn't appear to be," but the video clip is inconclusive, IMO. OB probably has a better clip.

Haven't seen this mentioned so far: suppose that after throwing to second, Felts appeals the "no swing" call on the check swing and the third base ump rules the batter swung. In that case there was no ball four, no walk, and disallowing an interference call means the defense is deprived of a strike-'im-out/throw-'im-out opportunity. So it seems logical that interference takes precedence over the "Ball Four" call.

 

[bclarke]

If the runner on first had gone to 2nd on the walk, and then taken one step past the base and was tagged, he'd be out. Same as if a batter had walked and gone down to first, rounded the bag, and was tagged. Catchers throw down to occupied bases all of the time, and you can't interfere with those throws, either.

OB explained what happened well, but what he didn't explain is the inability of ESPN commentators to know the rules of the game they are covering.

 

[Captain Ron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Captain Ron]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[waazel]

After looking at that replay, it sure seems this ump had this call in his back pocket and was just waiting to use it at the first opportunity he got in an effort to interject himself into the game. From that vantage point, it doesn't look like there was any contact (I know that's not required) nor does it look like the batter is "way out there" on his way to 1st. It looks like his back foot is still in the box with his front foot on the line. Let me put it this way, if he doesn't make that call, do you think anyone would argue that he should have? I hate when officials do this - at the end of the day these guys are supposed to be anonymous if they've done their jobs correctly. From what I've read on comments from both sides of this series is that the officiating was either downright ****** or these guys were trying to make themselves part of the action.

 

[Orangeblood]

I wish I could put my DVR HD video on here. There is DEFINITELY contact as the ball is leaving the catcher's hand, though it is with the left side of his body.