This play and call is a great example of why the umps should have mics to explain the call, like in football. Then the broadcasters and spectators would at least know why the play was called the way it was. They are just guessing.
@@teebob21nice try troll. Maybe the umpires should learn the rules of the game they are officiating so that it doesn’t take them nearly 15 minutes to come to a conclusion. If it takes that long, they should be forced to explain.
@@FreakForFantasy Pretty much, for NCAA and OBR. I'm a little weaker on the NFHS ruleset. I also work three different rulesets of fast pitch softball, and sometimes it's a pain to memorize all of the rule differences between all the alphabets.
I REALLY appreciate the fact that you speak clearly and not too fast, while explaining everything as thoroughly as possible. It's also funny because the broadcast team seems to rarely agree with the call until they actually look it up or get an explanation.
This is such a good analysis -- I watched other videos that got caught up in the "is he on or in front of the plate" and "the batter should have tried to swing in order to get interference" (implying the you need to make contact with the catcher to get the call). This makes it so much clearer - thx!
Now I fully understand what happened. The broadcast never brings up the issue that the Catcher was interfering with the batter, they only talked about possible interference with the runner.
She is wrong. The batter left the box which is strike 3. And she stopped the video with the catchers knee above the plate and even when he drops knee down it still may not be on the plate until he pivots to tag. Judgement call, and know way any ump there could say he touched the plate. A guess is what it was.
No shes not! You are! As if you watch a. The catcher moves up out of the catchers box & into the batters path where he could not swing without hitting the catcher & b. Again if you watch the catcher puts his arm out almost like he was PUSHING the batter out of the way! That alone would be catchers interference, but the fact that the catcher moves up & the batter is aware as to where the catcher is the batter had NO CHOICE! Meaning there was no choice to swing or not to as the catcher took that option away from the batter! Thats #1 & primary readion the batter left the batters box so its a catchers interference BALK as the catcher entered into fair teritory. The ruleis (at least in little league & hs) " All players must be in fair territory except the catcher when the pitch is trown anyone in foul teritory except the catcher commits a balk. So the catcher moving into fair teritory he commits 2 fouls interference & a balk. Thats why its not strike 3. The catcher interfered with the batters attemp to swing or not & he comits a balk by entering fair teritory the batter had no choice but to leave the batters box plus he had a run trying to score. The umpires got together & in the end made the right call.@@bernier42
@@mlbhighlights2756yes. If the catcher voluntarily enters the box during a pitch then he should face the consequences for his actions. Simple solution, don’t enter the box when a pitch is occurring
"After video review: On the pitch, the catcher comes out too early and prevents the batter from being able to swing. By rule this is both Catcher's Interference and a Balk, so the run scores." That at the very least would've been helpful for the fans and broadcast. Hope we see more elaborate explanations in baseball in the future, though there were no mics at all just a few years ago so 😂
@@happykid08ableIt is really irrelevant. The catcher must wait for the ball pass the plate. Only the glove over the plate is enough for catcher's interference.
I had this happen when I was coaching HS varsity ball. The coach of the opposing team was Frank Chambliss, brother of ex-Yankee Chris Chambliss. He went absolutely bonkers and was ejected. On the flip side, I once had a pitcher step off when a runner from third took off too early on a steal attempt when I had switched from coaching to umpiring. I was behind the plate and clearly saw the pitcher step off from his windup position. As he is allowed to do, the catcher stepped in front of the plate to receive the THROW from the pitcher. The batter was totally surprised and actually swung the bat, hitting the catcher. I killed the play and called out the 3B runner for the batter's interference with the catcher. The coach went semi-nuts. In accordance with his request, I checked with my partner and he confirmed that the pitcher had stepped off. Upon informing the coach, he went full blown nuts and was ejected. I am not well versed in NCAA specific rules, but I am pretty well versed in OBR rules. In OBR it states that all runners must touch the bases, including awarded bases. Would this not also apply to this runner from third? The rules also say that all runners are assumed to have touched a base unless an appeal is made, upon which time the umpire has to make a call.
Being that it was legal pitch shouldn’t a ruling of ball, strike or even catchers interference on the pitch, be the call made first? Effectively eliminating the play at home if it was a strike or catchers interference on the pitch. A strike ends the inning and catchers interference on the pitch would give the batter first, and the player stealing would return to third being that second base isn’t occupied and he isn’t forced home by the batter taking first. Correct me if I’m wrong but the pitch has to be ruled on before you can go any further right?
@@garylandry8550 "Being that it was legal pitch shouldn’t a ruling of ball, strike or even catchers interference on the pitch, be the call made first? Effectively eliminating the play at home" Yes, this is exactly what happened in the end. There was no actual play at home because catcher's interference was called. "catchers interference on the pitch would give the batter first, and the player stealing would return to third" No, the player on third would not return to third because as explained at 3:37 above NCAA Rule 8-2-e-2 states that the run scores if there is catcher's interference called during an attempted squeeze or steal of home. This was clearly catcher's interference (definition of CI given at 2:17) and there was clearly an attempted steal of home occurring when CI was called - so run scores.
@@LXDX70 yes the run scores when there is catchers interference on a squeeze play or attempted steal of home. The pitch happens first, so a ruling of ball strike, or catcher’s interference on the pitch itself should be called. A strike ends the inning eliminating the play at the plate , catchers interference ON THE PITCH would be a dead ball, batter gets first, all unforced runners return to their bag!
@@LXDX70 the rule you’re referring to is for catcher’s interference on a squeeze play, that is totally obsolete if the pitch was ruled on first. It wasn’t a ball so either strike or catchers interference on the pitch should’ve been called neither allows a run to score.
@@garylandry8550 No, I'm referring to the catcher's interference on a steal of home attempt, the rule that I cited which was explicitly spelled out in the video which explicitly states the run scores. Which rule, with citation, are you referring to? Of course it's a pitch or there would be no issue of catcher's interference. It was a pitch, CI was called, runner on 3rd was attempting to steal home - therefore run scores by rule. Again, just to be clear, this is NCAA Rule 8-2-e-2: which says, in part "If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play **or a steal of home,** the batter is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference." (emphasis mine).
They didn’t play competitively, most likely. You know some guys are regularly coming up with ways to push the rules to the limit, which is partly why the book is so thick.
Excellent job! Referring to the definition of the rules, keeping it simple, and not over thinking the situation, is always the best practices in identifying rule infractions.
I agree with catchers interference and a balk in NCAA. However, please note that this NOT a BALK in NFHS. In NFHS, R3 is awarded home but not because of a BALK. Any runner attempting to steal when catcher obstruction occurs is awarded that base. NFHS 8.1.1e 1. makes no mention of a balk (unlike NCAA), and NFHS Casebook 8.1.1 Situation L makes it clear. For example, if there were runners on 2nd and 3rd only, and R3 attempts to steal home when catcher obstructs, but R2 was not stealing, R2 would stay at 2nd. If there was a BALK in NFHS, R2 would go to 3rd. Again, NO BALK in NFHS.
Lindsay your explanations are the best! They should hire you for rules consultation during broadcast games, like that former NFL official Dean Blandino, except better!
I'm confused why this could not be a balk. F1 attempts a pitch, delivering legally from his plate. If the ball reached the plate, it is a pitch. If the ball doesn't reach the plate, would it not be a balk? Another example would be an attempted pitch that slips from the pitcher's hand. If it comes to rest before reaching the plate (or either foul line), that would be a balk with runners on base. If it reaches a foul line, it is a pitch and called a ball. In this video, if the umpire judged that the catcher received the ball in front of the plate, shouldn't he also call a balk? In the video, the play started with R3 and R1, so if a balk was called, the result would be the same. But if the play started with R3 and R2, the runner on 2nd would not advance, absent a balk call. And F2's interfering with the batter is a delayed dead ball. Does F2 interfering with the batter negate a balk? Does the catcher's interference supersede a balk? That is, does the balk rule not apply when there is catcher's interference with a batter?
Lindsey, Always enjoy the analysis and rule breakdown but I think you missed one here with regards to your comment at the 7:30 mark as it pertains to the college game. The rule reference I'm using is 8.6.b(4) . So if the pitcher had thrown to third in an attempt to catch the stealing runner who is obviously initiating the play the defense would still retain its right to appeal. You would be correct though if the pitcher had simply thrown to second in an attempt to pick the runner off, but as I said the runner in this case initiated the action (aka play). You can see the rules creators inserted this caveat with the intent to insure the offense can't simply initiate a play in an attempt to avoid a penalty for poor play, especially if it were to result in a run scored.
Good video and explanation. Odd that a pitcher at this level of play would not just disengage before making the throw. This is high level division 1 ball, and you learn as a young kid to step off to make the play when a runner breaks early.
Wouldn't it have also started with the catcher putting his right arm out, as if to shield the batter? Isn't that interference all by itself? If the bat is swung in that case, it would have likely hit the catcher's arm, somewhere between his fingers and shoulder. Great explanation, as always.
I can't understand why 13 minutes for 4 professional umpires to decide. The only possible discussion would be: did the pitcher pitched or threw. Then every umpire knows the call (catcher’s interference).
This is what is referred to as a Third World Play. These umpires may have seen this occur only one or zero times in their career. When that happens, it can take some time to get to the correct rules application. It's like when it takes your burger flipper an extra 6 minutes to figure out how to make a cheeseburger without cheese.
@@teebob21 I really didn't understand the "third world" reference. Here, in the third world, usually there is no doubts among professional umpires on how to deal with catcher’s interference. The actual play occurred in the United States of America. Did I miss anything? Sorry. English isn't my mother tongue.
It's looks like the batter is leaving the box before the pitch leaves the pitchers hand. Why doesn't this make a difference? If the batter is getting out of the way for the attempted steal, then he obviously wasn't going to hit the ball anyway.
The rules have "free choice" specifically referencing that the batter needs free choice to swing at the ball. Doesnt matter if the batter left the batters box or didnt seem to want to swing, he needs the option to do so.
Again the only reason it was even confusing or controversial to some people was because the clueless broadcasters are citing the wrong rule which is entirely irrelevant to what actually took place. I can't even imagine how they thought it was within the rules for a catcher to put himself in a position where he's hovering over the plate while a pitch is being made.
It’s sort of surprising to me that this is even controversial at all. It should be obvious to everyone that if a pitcher delivers a pitch from the rubber that the catcher can’t come out near or in front of home plate to receive the pitch. Like that should be completely obvious. I was sort of surprised it took the umpires so long to sort it out.
The PU should have called it right away. Pointed at the catcher and call INT. Point the runner home and point the batter to 1B. No 16 minute delay. Umps at that level are chosen for strike zones and game management, not rules knowledge.
Their argument might have been that the catcher didn’t interfere with the batter as the batter immediately bailed back out of the box. But that doesn’t matter by rule.
According to @CloseCallSports , it does. "The batter need not swing here for an interference call to be made, but the batter must remain in the box (he does) and show he is interested in choosing between a swing and taking the pitch." Or at least it did a few years ago.
@@garytravis9347Batter does not have to stay in the box. Whatever the batter does is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is if the catcher steps forward onto the plate. Lindsay thoroughly explained that several times in the video.
I knew this when I saw the thumbnail. Catcher interferred with the batter when he moved forward to block the plate. What bothers me about the call is the batter bailed out of the batter's box because he saw the runner coming before the pitch was thrown. Why, if he did that is it still interference?
Another reason for why the rule is written based upon the catcher's position (and it isn't like any other interference call) is that you don't want the batter to "legally" schwack the catcher with his bat in order to get the call. Think about it: if this rule didn't exist, wouldn't you take a free shot in a heated game... especially if doing so will get you run?
I feel like the other reason the interference rule awards the run for 3B is because, unless you call the runner back to the field after the interference call, they assumed they were out because of the tag. Forcing all players to touch home after being tagged "just in case" there was an interference/obstruction call may be on brand with a rule set that doesn't always agree with common sense, but instead they let common sense and the rules actually agree this time.
I think the "free choice" is an interpretation. The batter was leaving the box before the catcher moved (probably due to the knowledge that the runner was stealing home). Regardless, this was interesting. Great content!
The batter was starting to leave the box before the catcher moved, but that is irrelevant because he was still in the box until well after the catcher started to move. He backed up with his right foot and that was solidly still in the box, and only his step with the left fully brought him out of the box well after the catcher started moving to attempt the play at home.
I also noticed this. The batter must not commit interference either, though. So if he wasn’t going to swing, he did the right thing in leaving the batter’s box.
Question: is there anything the fielding team can do about the steal of third? Or any similar situation before an appeal? If a runner knows a team will appeal, could they just go for it and steal, since an attempt to catch them will make the appeal no longer possible?
Stepping out of the box when the steal is announced (in order to stay out of the way) would generally be helping keep everyone involved in the play safe. As such, even if it might by the narrowest technicality of the rules maybe be able to be ruled abandonment or something, is unlikely in the extreme to get called by umpires due to safety typically trumping other concerns.
Right, but if the batter is out of the box (for the purpose of getting out of the way of the steel) he can no longer swing at the ball so how can there be interference on a batter that can no longer rightfully swing at the ball?
@@joe2k73because the catcher is the one who initiated the move. The batter only stepped back when the catcher started the action. If the batter stepped away first then it wouldn’t be interference. Personally as a batter I would have swung and taken the catcher out permanently. That way you can be happy
Great explanation. Question: suppose the runner just feints to home but does not attempt to steal. The catcher caught the pitch in front of the plate, so it didn’t cross a foul line. Is this a balk?
Good question! If the player didn’t steal, just feinted then the play is called dead once the pitch is not batted. If there’s catcher’s interference to the batter because it’s a legal pitch, then the batter gets first. Seems a bit arbitrary, but the big difference here is that the pitcher legally pitched the ball, and third base runner committed to the steal.
The runner actually stealing home would add a balk to the penalties. Without that, only the plain penalty: hindered batter becomes batter-runner and gets first. Ball is dead after all action ceases. If there is a hit or 4-ball and batter gets first and all other runners get one base, the game plays on, no penalties.
Thanks for the responses. Ok, let’s take away the feint. It’s clearly catcher’s interference, but is it also a balk given the separate rule that the pitch is illegal (i.e., did not cross a foul line)? I’ve wondered about this for a while; I don’t see it called this way, but I’m not sure why.
@@mulgrum It is a balk because the runner on third was attempting to steal home at the moment of the catcher’s interference. It is a specific part of the rule for that situation.
@@helviojrno, I get that - I’ve called that rule in gameplay. I’m positing a different situation. Forget about the runner on third - put a runner on first. If the ball slips out of the pitcher’s hand on the pitch and doesn’t cross a foul line, it’s a balk. My question is, does this qualify as a pitch that doesn’t cross a foul line given that it was received in front of the plate? Again, i’ve never seen it called this way, but I can’t find a reason in the rules not to.
Wouldn't the batter backing out of the box prior to (maybe simultaneous to the beginning of) the catcher's movement be the batter making their free choice not to swing, negating the interference?
To do this job at a high level requires so many twitch brain muscle skills and Master of Ceremonies qualities, and the knowledge required is just immense. Give your lower level umps a break Dad.
I’m interested before these shenanigans. The batter cleared out of the box while the pitch was being thrown. Isn’t that a strike? On an 0-2 count which results in an out?
The batter did not actually vacate until after the catcher moved up to attempt the play. Specifically go to 1:48 and hit period (.) to step the frames forwards one at a time. The batter started moving backwards, but did not leave the box until well after the catcher moved forwards. The batter steps backwards with their right but it stayed well within the box, and it was his left foot that exited the box well after the catcher has moved forward into the plate area to attempt a play at the base. Rule 7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. At this point both feet were still in even though he was in the process of backing up EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base So no, the batter voluntarily backed up, but did not cede or step out of the box until after the catcher already moved to attempt the play.
This is just a dumb play from the start. 2 outs, 2 strikes… and you steal home? Just throw the ball down the middle for strike three. As a catcher, don’t panic, you have all the time you need to tag the runner out. On a side note, as the batter, stick your bat out and hit the catcher, this way the umpire can’t miss the call.
SEC officiating completely botched this whole ordeal and then silently told the world. What happens first pitch or play at home? So the first call made should be on the pitch. Under rule, NCAA 7-1A Batter, part b states “b. A batter shall not leave his position in the batter's box after the pitcher comes to the set position or starts the windup unless permission is granted by the umpire.” It goes on to state the penalty for leaving the box, “PENALTY for b -If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call "ball" or "strike," as the case may be. The batter leaves the batter's box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless "Time" is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live.” So a ball, strike, or even catcher’s interference on the pitch should’ve been called. It would’ve obviously been a strike ending the inning. If they ruled catchers interference on the pitch, the ball would be dead, the batter would be awarded first, being the bases weren’t loaded to force the runner home with the batter taking first, the player stealing home would return to 3rd. How can you rule on a play at the plate that happens after a legal pitch, without first ruling on the pitch? SEC rules also call for a one game suspension to immediately follow a coach being ejected in the tournament. Why was Jay Johnson allowed to coach, despite what SEC rules clearly state. The broadcast even said due to SEC rules he’d be suspended for the championship game. My bad coach since your team won we’re gonna let you coach
The thing that gets me about catcher’s obstructing the hitter is that the hitter made his choice before the catcher got in his way. If you watch the side view you can clearly see the batter backing away before the catcher is anywhere near him. How can it be interference when the batter was backing out of the box already?
I've seen this been called once before. Mike Piazza got called for it when he stepped out of the crouch on a pitchout. It was the play the resulted in the infamous Bobby Valentine ejection where he returned to the dugout later in glasses and a fake mustache. ua-cam.com/video/lv-gE4ZhUfI/v-deo.html&ab_channel=NewYorkMets
For reference, how much of the catcher's foot has to be in front of the plate during the steal attempt for CI to be called? Would 3:02 be too much of his foot in front? The foot lands before he has possession of the ball, and if you slow it down, you can see when he picked his foot up to pivot left, going up on his toes, his toes are in front of the plate, meaning that they were in front of the plate before he had possession of the ball.
Sooo , the batter choosing to completely step out of the box taking himself out of the opportunity to hit the pitch doesn’t affect the call ? If the batter is out of the box he can’t legally hit the ball so how does the catcher interfere with him ?
@@whatareuthinking1 when you say before, are you saying the catcher moved ahead before the batter backed out of the box or are you saying the catchers actions take prominence in the ruling?
Trying to wrap my head around the nuance here, so please let me know if I'm understanding this correctly: The rule about catcher's interference on a squeeze or steal of home is there as an addition to the normal catcher's interference, making it both interference AND a balk. All the regular catcher's interference stuff still applies (which is unrelated to the runner coming home), but this just ADDS the balk on top of it, meaning that ALL runners advance, not just those attempting a steal or advanced by a force. Is that right?
Yes, the result is still CI, which is why the batter gets awarded first. Because the runner was trying to score by stealing (or on a squeeze play), a balk is called in addition.
@@zgaviation6481 it’s a balk because it’s an illegal pitch. An illegal pitch with runners on is a balk. It’s an illegal pitch because of the catcher’s action. It’s why some call it a catcher’s balk.
@@rayray4192 I'm not a baseball guy (I'm a soccer ref), so I'm not familiar with the rulebook. Is there a rule that wasn't referenced in this video that makes it an illegal pitch? Is the "catcher's interference on a squeeze/steal of home" 100% redundant if it was already a balk?
@@GregMcNeish Two things happen simultaneously- the catcher interferes with the batter’s right to swing at a pitch, and by his action of stepping forward to receive the pitch he creates an illegal pitch. I’m still thinking about this and I’m not sure if there is a specific rule that addresses the illegal pitch, but I don’t know how you can have a balk without an illegal pitch. Catcher interference is not a balk; it’s interference. Something different other than the interference occurred to create a balk. Hope I’m making sense.
Wow! This makes it real hard on the catcher, who has to stay put until the ball crosses the plate (to give the batter his choice!) I thought that on interference plays, the defense has the right of way. How do the two rules jibe?
This was a pitch, not a batted ball. The catcher must not interfere with the batter's opportunity to hit a pitch. Stopping on or in front of home plate before the pitch arrives is defined as interference by F2.
The issue is the batter leaves the batters box and cannot legally strike at the ball. So even if the batter could hit the ball he would be out for striking the ball out of the box. How do you interfere with batters that cannot legally strike at the ball. The batter is voluntarily leaving the box
The only thing I don't understand is that the batter backed out of the batter's box before the catcher moved forward. The batter is not allowed to swing at the ball if either foot is out of the box. That should nullify the catcher's interference.
No you just didn't see it correctly, watch it again. Specifically go to 1:48 and hit period (.) to step the frames forwards one at a time. The batter started moving backwards, but did not leave the box until well after the catcher moved forwards. The batter steps backwards with their right but it stayed well within the box, and it was his left foot that exited the box well after the catcher has moved forward into the plate area to attempt a play at the base. Rule 7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. At this point both feet were still in even though he was in the process of backing up EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base So no, the batter voluntarily backed up, but did not cede or step out of the box until after the catcher already moved to attempt the play.
"the batter is not allowed to swing at the ball if either foot is out of the box" - this is not correct. The actual rule requires that the bat makes contact with the ball, then fair or foul, the batter is out. Rule 7-10-a And, again, the batter was deprived of the 'free choice' to swing at all.
really what a batter should do it hold out a bunt as far back in the stance as possible, before pulling it back at the last instant, to in essence box the catcher out. Catcher's interference would be called on that much before it would have for just moving forward with no batter there.
This is exactly why 'hinders' is in the rule and contact isn't necessary. No one wants coaches teaching batters to light up the catcher in the back of the head.
NCAA in the past has had a few no calls because the batter had his bat on his shoulder or backed out. They then published an interp that CI should be called no matter what the batter did. Otherwise coaches would start having their batters clock the catcher. Even after the interp I saw a batter swing over the catcher's head to make sure CI was called. Some MLB umps still follow an old interp that if the batter gives up if can't be CI. That is not how NCAA calls it.
Rule 7-1A (b). PENALTY for b -“If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call “ball” or “strike,” as the case may be. The batter leaves the batter’s box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless “Time” is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live.”
7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base, And we can see the batter is still clearly in the box when the catcher begins to attempt their play at home. In fact the batter takes a full step back with their right foot and lands entirely still in the box, and it is only their 2nd step with the left foot that brings them out of the box. The catcher has moved before the box has been vacated so the exception d. is valid.
It doesn't in NFHS or NCAA. It might in MLB where there is an old interp that it isn't called if the batter gives up his right to strike at the pitch. That interp is old and might be out of date but some MLB umpires are out of date also.
NCAA rule 7-1A: The batter leaves the batter's box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless “Time” is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live. c. If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter's box during the time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike.
Geez, so much energy was spent here on “he intefered with the batter” when the batter was clearly giving himself up and getting out of the way of the runner before the catcher even got up out of his crouch.
In my opinion as an umpire for 35 year’s because the batter first retreated from batters box before Cather moved, the batter has no rights at home plate thus nullified the interference by Cather rule and out at plate should stand. You and umpires got call wrong
The batter bailed out long before the ball got there anyways. He had no intentions of staying in the box. Ball was still in pitchers hand when he was stepping out. Still a bad call
Wasn't a bad call. At minimum the batter is reacting to the catcher starting to come forward. Plus by rule it doesn't matter since it's on the catcher not to hinder.
You don't understand. The batter started backing up, but was still in the box when the catcher started moving forwards to make their attempt at a play at home. Read the rule. 7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. EXCEPTION: A batter may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base, And you can go to 1:48 and see very clearly the batter is well within their box when the catcher started moving forwards. The batter takes 1 step back with their right foot and are well within the box still. Then the take another step back and STILL have their right foot planted in the box when the left is out. And according to the rule they are still in the box and by that point the catcher is directly on top of the plate. Just go to 1:48, hit period (.) to see frame by frame.
So if the catcher can’t put himself in position to tag the runner out then a runner on third can score at any time. Furthermore the batter appeared to know that the runner was attempting to steal home because he backed away from the plate. If there was no batter there’s no interference. The batter was not in the box when the pitch was delivered.
The batter was in the box when the pitcher began his motion and the umpire did not call time for the batter. Therefore it is a pitched ball and since the catcher takes away any chance the batter could swing at the pitch, it is interference.
The batter is not required to remain in the box when the pitch is thrown. The catcher cannot position themselves on or in front of the plate on a pitch. This catcher did that. The pitcher should have stepped off before throwing home. End of story.
Irrelevant though. The pitch wasn't legally delivered in any case. Pitches have to cross the plate (or specifically, have to enter foul territory between first and third base) to be legal (unless it is hit or hits the batter obviously)
@@teebob21 correct, I made the distinction of him being in the box at the start because you can’t make a pitch without him in the box. Whatever he decides to do once the pitcher starts his motion, needs to be sanctioned by the umpire. No one called time, no one disengaged, interference all the way.
The catcher can't put himself in position to tag the runner out when a pitch is coming across the plate. Once the ball passes the plate, he can put himself into a position to tag the runner. If the pitcher steps off the rubber, it's not a pitch, so the catcher can put himself into a position to tag the runner as he sees fit. So a runner on third cannot score at any time. They still need to fool the pitcher well enough to force them to make a pitch, and then beat the pitch. ETA: Also, the batter was in the box when the pitch was delivered. Delivery begins at windup, not at release.
@@rickhaavisto9023 in ths case th batter had completely stepped out of th box, knowing th steal was in progress, b4 th catcher moved up to field th pitch/throw, wtf else was he sposed to do?
@@rickhaavisto9023 I’m no basebl rules savant, but as I said, in Ths Case! th batter had vacated th box, & had no intention of swinging @ th pitch, was not interfered wth in any way, b4 th catcher stepped up, & as I see it, was actualy behind th plate whn he caught th ball, so Again, in ths case if tht’s th correct interpretation of th rule, it’s a bad rule! I can certainly see tht in some instances th catcher in tht position would be interfering wth th batter, but not in ths case!
@@rogerchaufornier9916 The NCAA has made it clear that they’d rather err on the side of giving CI calls to batters who may have had no intention of swinging rather than having it so batters feel they have to swing to get the call
This play and call is a great example of why the umps should have mics to explain the call, like in football. Then the broadcasters and spectators would at least know why the play was called the way it was. They are just guessing.
Perhaps broadcasters and spectators should learn the rules of the game they watch.
@@teebob21nice try troll. Maybe the umpires should learn the rules of the game they are officiating so that it doesn’t take them nearly 15 minutes to come to a conclusion. If it takes that long, they should be forced to explain.
@@teebob21, do you know every rule in baseball?
The crazy thing is the SEC mics up the umpires and we still didn’t get an explanation. I was at the game and we were all confused.
@@FreakForFantasy Pretty much, for NCAA and OBR. I'm a little weaker on the NFHS ruleset. I also work three different rulesets of fast pitch softball, and sometimes it's a pain to memorize all of the rule differences between all the alphabets.
I REALLY appreciate the fact that you speak clearly and not too fast, while explaining everything as thoroughly as possible.
It's also funny because the broadcast team seems to rarely agree with the call until they actually look it up or get an explanation.
She's got the formula down.
This is such a good analysis -- I watched other videos that got caught up in the "is he on or in front of the plate" and "the batter should have tried to swing in order to get interference" (implying the you need to make contact with the catcher to get the call). This makes it so much clearer - thx!
Now I fully understand what happened. The broadcast never brings up the issue that the Catcher was interfering with the batter, they only talked about possible interference with the runner.
I was hoping Lindsay would at least address the fact that it’s still interference with the batter even the batter was already getting out of the area.
She is wrong. The batter left the box which is strike 3. And she stopped the video with the catchers knee above the plate and even when he drops knee down it still may not be on the plate until he pivots to tag. Judgement call, and know way any ump there could say he touched the plate. A guess is what it was.
No shes not! You are! As if you watch a. The catcher moves up out of the catchers box & into the batters path where he could not swing without hitting the catcher & b. Again if you watch the catcher puts his arm out almost like he was PUSHING the batter out of the way! That alone would be catchers interference, but the fact that the catcher moves up & the batter is aware as to where the catcher is the batter had NO CHOICE! Meaning there was no choice to swing or not to as the catcher took that option away from the batter! Thats #1 & primary readion the batter left the batters box so its a catchers interference BALK as the catcher entered into fair teritory. The ruleis (at least in little league & hs) " All players must be in fair territory except the catcher when the pitch is trown anyone in foul teritory except the catcher commits a balk. So the catcher moving into fair teritory he commits 2 fouls interference & a balk. Thats why its not strike 3. The catcher interfered with the batters attemp to swing or not & he comits a balk by entering fair teritory the batter had no choice but to leave the batters box plus he had a run trying to score. The umpires got together & in the end made the right call.@@bernier42
@@glc6075would you rather the batter seriously injure this catcher?
@@mlbhighlights2756yes. If the catcher voluntarily enters the box during a pitch then he should face the consequences for his actions. Simple solution, don’t enter the box when a pitch is occurring
I'm so glad you made this video. Other youtubers and comment sections have been an absolute mess about all parts of this one.
"After video review: On the pitch, the catcher comes out too early and prevents the batter from being able to swing. By rule this is both Catcher's Interference and a Balk, so the run scores."
That at the very least would've been helpful for the fans and broadcast. Hope we see more elaborate explanations in baseball in the future, though there were no mics at all just a few years ago so 😂
Except that is clearly NOT what happened, as it's plainly obvious the batter is leaving the box first and is out of box when catcher comes forward.
@@glc6075 irrelevant to the rule
@@glc6075 the batter leaves due to the catcher stepping forward.
@@happykid08ableIt is really irrelevant. The catcher must wait for the ball pass the plate. Only the glove over the plate is enough for catcher's interference.
However, this is not reviewable. The relevant factor is where the catcher is when the catch is made.
It was painful listening to the home team announcers in the LSU game, where they actively watched the replay and lied about what they were seeing.
I had this happen when I was coaching HS varsity ball. The coach of the opposing team was Frank Chambliss, brother of ex-Yankee Chris Chambliss. He went absolutely bonkers and was ejected. On the flip side, I once had a pitcher step off when a runner from third took off too early on a steal attempt when I had switched from coaching to umpiring. I was behind the plate and clearly saw the pitcher step off from his windup position. As he is allowed to do, the catcher stepped in front of the plate to receive the THROW from the pitcher. The batter was totally surprised and actually swung the bat, hitting the catcher. I killed the play and called out the 3B runner for the batter's interference with the catcher. The coach went semi-nuts. In accordance with his request, I checked with my partner and he confirmed that the pitcher had stepped off. Upon informing the coach, he went full blown nuts and was ejected.
I am not well versed in NCAA specific rules, but I am pretty well versed in OBR rules. In OBR it states that all runners must touch the bases, including awarded bases. Would this not also apply to this runner from third? The rules also say that all runners are assumed to have touched a base unless an appeal is made, upon which time the umpire has to make a call.
Being that it was legal pitch shouldn’t a ruling of ball, strike or even catchers interference on the pitch, be the call made first? Effectively eliminating the play at home if it was a strike or catchers interference on the pitch. A strike ends the inning and catchers interference on the pitch would give the batter first, and the player stealing would return to third being that second base isn’t occupied and he isn’t forced home by the batter taking first. Correct me if I’m wrong but the pitch has to be ruled on before you can go any further right?
@@garylandry8550 "Being that it was legal pitch shouldn’t a ruling of ball, strike or even catchers interference on the pitch, be the call made first? Effectively eliminating the play at home"
Yes, this is exactly what happened in the end. There was no actual play at home because catcher's interference was called.
"catchers interference on the pitch would give the batter first, and the player stealing would return to third"
No, the player on third would not return to third because as explained at 3:37 above NCAA Rule 8-2-e-2 states that the run scores if there is catcher's interference called during an attempted squeeze or steal of home. This was clearly catcher's interference (definition of CI given at 2:17) and there was clearly an attempted steal of home occurring when CI was called - so run scores.
@@LXDX70 yes the run scores when there is catchers interference on a squeeze play or attempted steal of home. The pitch happens first, so a ruling of ball strike, or catcher’s interference on the pitch itself should be called. A strike ends the inning eliminating the play at the plate , catchers interference ON THE PITCH would be a dead ball, batter gets first, all unforced runners return to their bag!
@@LXDX70 the rule you’re referring to is for catcher’s interference on a squeeze play, that is totally obsolete if the pitch was ruled on first. It wasn’t a ball so either strike or catchers interference on the pitch should’ve been called neither allows a run to score.
@@garylandry8550 No, I'm referring to the catcher's interference on a steal of home attempt, the rule that I cited which was explicitly spelled out in the video which explicitly states the run scores. Which rule, with citation, are you referring to?
Of course it's a pitch or there would be no issue of catcher's interference. It was a pitch, CI was called, runner on 3rd was attempting to steal home - therefore run scores by rule.
Again, just to be clear, this is NCAA Rule 8-2-e-2: which says, in part "If there is catcher’s interference on a squeeze play **or a steal of home,** the batter is awarded first base, the run scores and all other runners advance one base on the balk created by the interference." (emphasis mine).
I love the steal of third at the end. Such good baseball!
Not sure why this is so hard for some to comprehend. Especially with your great explanation
They didn’t play competitively, most likely. You know some guys are regularly coming up with ways to push the rules to the limit, which is partly why the book is so thick.
Excellent job! Referring to the definition of the rules, keeping it simple, and not over thinking the situation, is always the best practices in identifying rule infractions.
I agree with catchers interference and a balk in NCAA. However, please note that this NOT a BALK in NFHS.
In NFHS, R3 is awarded home but not because of a BALK. Any runner attempting to steal when catcher obstruction occurs is awarded that base. NFHS 8.1.1e 1. makes no mention of a balk (unlike NCAA), and NFHS Casebook 8.1.1 Situation L makes it clear. For example, if there were runners on 2nd and 3rd only, and R3 attempts to steal home when catcher obstructs, but R2 was not stealing, R2 would stay at 2nd. If there was a BALK in NFHS, R2 would go to 3rd. Again, NO BALK in NFHS.
Lindsay your explanations are the best! They should hire you for rules consultation during broadcast games, like that former NFL official Dean Blandino, except better!
Much better explanation than others I've seen. 👍
Not surprised that the announcers are clueless. They ought look up rules before sharing their "knowledge" with viewers.
I'm confused why this could not be a balk. F1 attempts a pitch, delivering legally from his plate. If the ball reached the plate, it is a pitch. If the ball doesn't reach the plate, would it not be a balk? Another example would be an attempted pitch that slips from the pitcher's hand. If it comes to rest before reaching the plate (or either foul line), that would be a balk with runners on base. If it reaches a foul line, it is a pitch and called a ball. In this video, if the umpire judged that the catcher received the ball in front of the plate, shouldn't he also call a balk? In the video, the play started with R3 and R1, so if a balk was called, the result would be the same. But if the play started with R3 and R2, the runner on 2nd would not advance, absent a balk call. And F2's interfering with the batter is a delayed dead ball. Does F2 interfering with the batter negate a balk? Does the catcher's interference supersede a balk? That is, does the balk rule not apply when there is catcher's interference with a batter?
Lindsey, Always enjoy the analysis and rule breakdown but I think you missed one here with regards to your comment at the 7:30 mark as it pertains to the college game. The rule reference I'm using is 8.6.b(4) . So if the pitcher had thrown to third in an attempt to catch the stealing runner who is obviously initiating the play the defense would still retain its right to appeal. You would be correct though if the pitcher had simply thrown to second in an attempt to pick the runner off, but as I said the runner in this case initiated the action (aka play). You can see the rules creators inserted this caveat with the intent to insure the offense can't simply initiate a play in an attempt to avoid a penalty for poor play, especially if it were to result in a run scored.
Good video and explanation. Odd that a pitcher at this level of play would not just disengage before making the throw. This is high level division 1 ball, and you learn as a young kid to step off to make the play when a runner breaks early.
It's wild how ignorant a TON of college announcers are about the sport the cover. Great vid, as always!
There are three groups of people you can count on to not know the rules: announcers, players, and assistant coaches.
@@teebob21 You forgot casual fans.
@@alanhess9306Fair enough.
Awesome! I was told about this play by my brother so I had no idea the call. So I looked up the rule and took a while to finally found it.
Wouldn't it have also started with the catcher putting his right arm out, as if to shield the batter? Isn't that interference all by itself? If the bat is swung in that case, it would have likely hit the catcher's arm, somewhere between his fingers and shoulder. Great explanation, as always.
You provide a wonderful service to the baseball community. I've learned so much from your videos. Thank you!
I can't understand why 13 minutes for 4 professional umpires to decide. The only possible discussion would be: did the pitcher pitched or threw. Then every umpire knows the call (catcher’s interference).
This is what is referred to as a Third World Play. These umpires may have seen this occur only one or zero times in their career. When that happens, it can take some time to get to the correct rules application.
It's like when it takes your burger flipper an extra 6 minutes to figure out how to make a cheeseburger without cheese.
@@teebob21 I really didn't understand the "third world" reference. Here, in the third world, usually there is no doubts among professional umpires on how to deal with catcher’s interference. The actual play occurred in the United States of America. Did I miss anything? Sorry. English isn't my mother tongue.
It's looks like the batter is leaving the box before the pitch leaves the pitchers hand. Why doesn't this make a difference? If the batter is getting out of the way for the attempted steal, then he obviously wasn't going to hit the ball anyway.
The rules have "free choice" specifically referencing that the batter needs free choice to swing at the ball. Doesnt matter if the batter left the batters box or didnt seem to want to swing, he needs the option to do so.
Best breakdown I have seen of this situation.
Again the only reason it was even confusing or controversial to some people was because the clueless broadcasters are citing the wrong rule which is entirely irrelevant to what actually took place.
I can't even imagine how they thought it was within the rules for a catcher to put himself in a position where he's hovering over the plate while a pitch is being made.
It’s sort of surprising to me that this is even controversial at all. It should be obvious to everyone that if a pitcher delivers a pitch from the rubber that the catcher can’t come out near or in front of home plate to receive the pitch. Like that should be completely obvious. I was sort of surprised it took the umpires so long to sort it out.
The PU should have called it right away. Pointed at the catcher and call INT. Point the runner home and point the batter to 1B. No 16 minute delay. Umps at that level are chosen for strike zones and game management, not rules knowledge.
It's all about taking away the hitters opportunity to swing. I think they had 3 ex players in the booth and no one mentions that. 😆
Happy subscriber here. Thank you for another excellent video!
When I saw this first thing I thought of is you guys, LoL 😂😂😂 Go get them Lindsey
yet another time when the coaches nor the commentators know the rules
Their argument might have been that the catcher didn’t interfere with the batter as the batter immediately bailed back out of the box. But that doesn’t matter by rule.
According to @CloseCallSports , it does. "The batter need not swing here for an interference call to be made, but the batter must remain in the box (he does) and show he is interested in choosing between a swing and taking the pitch." Or at least it did a few years ago.
@@garytravis9347Batter does not have to stay in the box. Whatever the batter does is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is if the catcher steps forward onto the plate. Lindsay thoroughly explained that several times in the video.
Thank you for your awesome explanation
I mean the batter still always has the free choice to swing, but the catcher might REALLY regret that.
I knew this when I saw the thumbnail. Catcher interferred with the batter when he moved forward to block the plate. What bothers me about the call is the batter bailed out of the batter's box because he saw the runner coming before the pitch was thrown. Why, if he did that is it still interference?
Batter jumps out of the way because he knows the call. If he knows the call, he should show a bunt instead. Catcher can't go through his bat.
That was what I was thinking. It would be more obvious....
@@ingiford175 Maybe just go ahead and swing...
Another reason for why the rule is written based upon the catcher's position (and it isn't like any other interference call) is that you don't want the batter to "legally" schwack the catcher with his bat in order to get the call. Think about it: if this rule didn't exist, wouldn't you take a free shot in a heated game... especially if doing so will get you run?
I feel like the other reason the interference rule awards the run for 3B is because, unless you call the runner back to the field after the interference call, they assumed they were out because of the tag.
Forcing all players to touch home after being tagged "just in case" there was an interference/obstruction call may be on brand with a rule set that doesn't always agree with common sense, but instead they let common sense and the rules actually agree this time.
I think the "free choice" is an interpretation. The batter was leaving the box before the catcher moved (probably due to the knowledge that the runner was stealing home). Regardless, this was interesting. Great content!
It looks like he moves in reaction to the catcher trying to wave him off almost.
The batter was starting to leave the box before the catcher moved, but that is irrelevant because he was still in the box until well after the catcher started to move. He backed up with his right foot and that was solidly still in the box, and only his step with the left fully brought him out of the box well after the catcher started moving to attempt the play at home.
I also noticed this. The batter must not commit interference either, though. So if he wasn’t going to swing, he did the right thing in leaving the batter’s box.
My days not complete until a video from Lindsey
The worst thing is all he had to do is catch the ball- strike 3 inning over
@@nickpoole583 It was not a strike
Excellent break down.
Question: is there anything the fielding team can do about the steal of third? Or any similar situation before an appeal? If a runner knows a team will appeal, could they just go for it and steal, since an attempt to catch them will make the appeal no longer possible?
The batter stepped out of the batters box, how can you say the catcher interferred with the batter ?
if the pitcher had steped off he would a been out no batters interference
well yeah but the pitcher didn't see the runner, that's the whole point
What about how the batter steps out by choice? He chose not to make an attempt to hit the ball.
Question... Does the fact that the batter stepped out of the batters box before the pitcher released the ball come into play?
no
Stepping out of the box when the steal is announced (in order to stay out of the way) would generally be helping keep everyone involved in the play safe. As such, even if it might by the narrowest technicality of the rules maybe be able to be ruled abandonment or something, is unlikely in the extreme to get called by umpires due to safety typically trumping other concerns.
Right, but if the batter is out of the box (for the purpose of getting out of the way of the steel) he can no longer swing at the ball so how can there be interference on a batter that can no longer rightfully swing at the ball?
@@joe2k73because the catcher is the one who initiated the move. The batter only stepped back when the catcher started the action. If the batter stepped away first then it wouldn’t be interference. Personally as a batter I would have swung and taken the catcher out permanently. That way you can be happy
@@rickysampson8759 i have seen a young fellow killed by one swing of a bat.
this is a game not a war, it is not worth a life.
The batter was stepping out of the box prior to the catcher stepping forward.
That is irrelevant though. He stepped out to avoid the runner who might have slid home.
Great explanation. Question: suppose the runner just feints to home but does not attempt to steal. The catcher caught the pitch in front of the plate, so it didn’t cross a foul line. Is this a balk?
Good question! If the player didn’t steal, just feinted then the play is called dead once the pitch is not batted. If there’s catcher’s interference to the batter because it’s a legal pitch, then the batter gets first.
Seems a bit arbitrary, but the big difference here is that the pitcher legally pitched the ball, and third base runner committed to the steal.
The runner actually stealing home would add a balk to the penalties. Without that, only the plain penalty: hindered batter becomes batter-runner and gets first. Ball is dead after all action ceases. If there is a hit or 4-ball and batter gets first and all other runners get one base, the game plays on, no penalties.
Thanks for the responses. Ok, let’s take away the feint. It’s clearly catcher’s interference, but is it also a balk given the separate rule that the pitch is illegal (i.e., did not cross a foul line)? I’ve wondered about this for a while; I don’t see it called this way, but I’m not sure why.
@@mulgrum It is a balk because the runner on third was attempting to steal home at the moment of the catcher’s interference. It is a specific part of the rule for that situation.
@@helviojrno, I get that - I’ve called that rule in gameplay. I’m positing a different situation. Forget about the runner on third - put a runner on first. If the ball slips out of the pitcher’s hand on the pitch and doesn’t cross a foul line, it’s a balk. My question is, does this qualify as a pitch that doesn’t cross a foul line given that it was received in front of the plate? Again, i’ve never seen it called this way, but I can’t find a reason in the rules not to.
Top job LinZee
Wouldn't the batter backing out of the box prior to (maybe simultaneous to the beginning of) the catcher's movement be the batter making their free choice not to swing, negating the interference?
I’ve asked the same question , haven’t gotten any feed back yet . 😊
To do this job at a high level requires so many twitch brain muscle skills and Master of Ceremonies qualities, and the knowledge required is just immense. Give your lower level umps a break Dad.
I’m interested before these shenanigans. The batter cleared out of the box while the pitch was being thrown. Isn’t that a strike? On an 0-2 count which results in an out?
No. There is no rule for an automatic strike for bailing out of the batters box after the pitch has been thrown.
It cannot be a strike when catcher's interference occurs.
Does the batter vacating the box have any bearing on the ruling? Its hard to say the catcher interfered with him if he cant legally hit the ball
The batter did not actually vacate until after the catcher moved up to attempt the play. Specifically go to 1:48 and hit period (.) to step the frames forwards one at a time. The batter started moving backwards, but did not leave the box until well after the catcher moved forwards. The batter steps backwards with their right but it stayed well within the box, and it was his left foot that exited the box well after the catcher has moved forward into the plate area to attempt a play at the base. Rule 7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. At this point both feet were still in even though he was in the process of backing up
EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base
So no, the batter voluntarily backed up, but did not cede or step out of the box until after the catcher already moved to attempt the play.
What happened to the batter must remain in the box (to exercise his free choice)?
This is just a dumb play from the start. 2 outs, 2 strikes… and you steal home? Just throw the ball down the middle for strike three.
As a catcher, don’t panic, you have all the time you need to tag the runner out.
On a side note, as the batter, stick your bat out and hit the catcher, this way the umpire can’t miss the call.
wtf are you on the batter bailed on the batters box before the pitch was even released
SEC officiating completely botched this whole ordeal and then silently told the world. What happens first pitch or play at home? So the first call made should be on the pitch. Under rule, NCAA 7-1A Batter, part b states “b. A batter shall not leave his position in the batter's box after the pitcher comes to the set
position or starts the windup unless permission is granted by the umpire.” It goes on to state the penalty for leaving the box, “PENALTY for b -If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call "ball" or "strike," as the case may be. The batter leaves the batter's box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless "Time" is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live.” So a ball, strike, or even catcher’s interference on the pitch should’ve been called. It would’ve obviously been a strike ending the inning. If they ruled catchers interference on the pitch, the ball would be dead, the batter would be awarded first, being the bases weren’t loaded to force the runner home with the batter taking first, the player stealing home would return to 3rd. How can you rule on a play at the plate that happens after a legal pitch, without first ruling on the pitch? SEC rules also call for a one game suspension to immediately follow a coach being ejected in the tournament. Why was Jay Johnson allowed to coach, despite what SEC rules clearly state. The broadcast even said due to SEC rules he’d be suspended for the championship game. My bad coach since your team won we’re gonna let you coach
The thing that gets me about catcher’s obstructing the hitter is that the hitter made his choice before the catcher got in his way. If you watch the side view you can clearly see the batter backing away before the catcher is anywhere near him. How can it be interference when the batter was backing out of the box already?
I've seen this been called once before. Mike Piazza got called for it when he stepped out of the crouch on a pitchout. It was the play the resulted in the infamous Bobby Valentine ejection where he returned to the dugout later in glasses and a fake mustache.
ua-cam.com/video/lv-gE4ZhUfI/v-deo.html&ab_channel=NewYorkMets
For reference, how much of the catcher's foot has to be in front of the plate during the steal attempt for CI to be called? Would 3:02 be too much of his foot in front? The foot lands before he has possession of the ball, and if you slow it down, you can see when he picked his foot up to pivot left, going up on his toes, his toes are in front of the plate, meaning that they were in front of the plate before he had possession of the ball.
Sooo , the batter choosing to completely step out of the box taking himself out of the opportunity to hit the pitch doesn’t affect the call ? If the batter is out of the box he can’t legally hit the ball so how does the catcher interfere with him ?
The catcher's actions Are before for anything else. The rest is irrelevant
@@whatareuthinking1 when you say before, are you saying the catcher moved ahead before the batter backed out of the box or are you saying the catchers actions take prominence in the ruling?
Trying to wrap my head around the nuance here, so please let me know if I'm understanding this correctly: The rule about catcher's interference on a squeeze or steal of home is there as an addition to the normal catcher's interference, making it both interference AND a balk. All the regular catcher's interference stuff still applies (which is unrelated to the runner coming home), but this just ADDS the balk on top of it, meaning that ALL runners advance, not just those attempting a steal or advanced by a force.
Is that right?
It’s an illegal pitch due to the catcher’s actions. An illegal pitch widget runners on is a balk.
Yes, the result is still CI, which is why the batter gets awarded first. Because the runner was trying to score by stealing (or on a squeeze play), a balk is called in addition.
@@zgaviation6481 it’s a balk because it’s an illegal pitch. An illegal pitch with runners on is a balk.
It’s an illegal pitch because of the catcher’s action. It’s why some call it a catcher’s balk.
@@rayray4192 I'm not a baseball guy (I'm a soccer ref), so I'm not familiar with the rulebook. Is there a rule that wasn't referenced in this video that makes it an illegal pitch? Is the "catcher's interference on a squeeze/steal of home" 100% redundant if it was already a balk?
@@GregMcNeish Two things happen simultaneously- the catcher interferes with the batter’s right to swing at a pitch, and by his action of stepping forward to receive the pitch he creates an illegal pitch. I’m still thinking about this and I’m not sure if there is a specific rule that addresses the illegal pitch, but I don’t know how you can have a balk without an illegal pitch. Catcher interference is not a balk; it’s interference. Something different other than the interference occurred to create a balk. Hope I’m making sense.
Not a balk in high school
Wow! This makes it real hard on the catcher, who has to stay put until the ball crosses the plate (to give the batter his choice!)
I thought that on interference plays, the defense has the right of way. How do the two rules jibe?
This was a pitch, not a batted ball. The catcher must not interfere with the batter's opportunity to hit a pitch. Stopping on or in front of home plate before the pitch arrives is defined as interference by F2.
The issue is the batter leaves the batters box and cannot legally strike at the ball. So even if the batter could hit the ball he would be out for striking the ball out of the box. How do you interfere with batters that cannot legally strike at the ball.
The batter is voluntarily leaving the box
Ya can't be up there doin' a catcher's balk like that.
And thats a close call.... *Oh wait, more video at the end*.... Ok is it over? Its over... Ok cool. And thats a close call... Sports!
Sports. Is VERY serious. Never forget that.
The batter was abandoning the batters box even before the ball left the pitchers hand, and the catcher was beyond the plate.
I saw the rule violation playing it the 1st time with no audio. It was that obvious
The only thing I don't understand is that the batter backed out of the batter's box before the catcher moved forward. The batter is not allowed to swing at the ball if either foot is out of the box. That should nullify the catcher's interference.
No you just didn't see it correctly, watch it again. Specifically go to 1:48 and hit period (.) to step the frames forwards one at a time. The batter started moving backwards, but did not leave the box until well after the catcher moved forwards. The batter steps backwards with their right but it stayed well within the box, and it was his left foot that exited the box well after the catcher has moved forward into the plate area to attempt a play at the base. Rule 7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat. At this point both feet were still in even though he was in the process of backing up
EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when: d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base
So no, the batter voluntarily backed up, but did not cede or step out of the box until after the catcher already moved to attempt the play.
"the batter is not allowed to swing at the ball if either foot is out of the box" - this is not correct. The actual rule requires that the bat makes contact with the ball, then fair or foul, the batter is out. Rule 7-10-a
And, again, the batter was deprived of the 'free choice' to swing at all.
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple, Silly.
I feel like the batter should have swung into the catcher's back, just to drive home the interference.
Evil, but it would have been within the batter's rights to take a hack at the pitch.
really what a batter should do it hold out a bunt as far back in the stance as possible, before pulling it back at the last instant, to in essence box the catcher out. Catcher's interference would be called on that much before it would have for just moving forward with no batter there.
Or at least be in the batters box.
This is exactly why 'hinders' is in the rule and contact isn't necessary. No one wants coaches teaching batters to light up the catcher in the back of the head.
NCAA in the past has had a few no calls because the batter had his bat on his shoulder or backed out. They then published an interp that CI should be called no matter what the batter did. Otherwise coaches would start having their batters clock the catcher. Even after the interp I saw a batter swing over the catcher's head to make sure CI was called. Some MLB umps still follow an old interp that if the batter gives up if can't be CI. That is not how NCAA calls it.
Are we not going to talk about how high school calls this obstruction? Sigh.... consistentcy
Rule 7-1A (b). PENALTY for b -“If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call “ball” or “strike,” as the case may be. The batter leaves the batter’s box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless “Time” is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live.”
7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat.
EXCEPTION: A better may leave the batter's box when:
d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base,
And we can see the batter is still clearly in the box when the catcher begins to attempt their play at home. In fact the batter takes a full step back with their right foot and lands entirely still in the box, and it is only their 2nd step with the left foot that brings them out of the box. The catcher has moved before the box has been vacated so the exception d. is valid.
So the batter stepping out of the box doesn't matter?
It doesn't matter one whit.
Exactly
It doesn't in NFHS or NCAA. It might in MLB where there is an old interp that it isn't called if the batter gives up his right to strike at the pitch. That interp is old and might be out of date but some MLB umpires are out of date also.
NCAA rule 7-1A:
The batter leaves the batter's box at the risk of having a strike delivered, unless “Time” is requested and granted from the umpire. If the pitch is made, the ball is live. c. If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter's box during the time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike.
@@glc6075 That rule applies prior to the pitch, not once it has been thrown.
Geez, so much energy was spent here on “he intefered with the batter” when the batter was clearly giving himself up and getting out of the way of the runner before the catcher even got up out of his crouch.
The batter wasn’t even trying to swing. He stepped out of the box.
In my opinion as an umpire for 35 year’s because the batter first retreated from batters box before Cather moved, the batter has no rights at home plate thus nullified the interference by Cather rule and out at plate should stand. You and umpires got call wrong
I see you have 35 seasons of 1st year experience.
Batter was not in the batter’s box! He backed out before the pitch!!
Doesn't matter, catcher still can't receive a pitch in front of home plate like that
@@voncornhole He wasn't in front of the plate.
Knee on
The batter bailed out long before the ball got there anyways. He had no intentions of staying in the box. Ball was still in pitchers hand when he was stepping out. Still a bad call
Wasn't a bad call. At minimum the batter is reacting to the catcher starting to come forward. Plus by rule it doesn't matter since it's on the catcher not to hinder.
You don't understand. The batter started backing up, but was still in the box when the catcher started moving forwards to make their attempt at a play at home. Read the rule.
7-3-1...The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat.
EXCEPTION: A batter may leave the batter's box when:
d. the pitcher or catcher feints or attempts a play at any base,
And you can go to 1:48 and see very clearly the batter is well within their box when the catcher started moving forwards. The batter takes 1 step back with their right foot and are well within the box still. Then the take another step back and STILL have their right foot planted in the box when the left is out. And according to the rule they are still in the box and by that point the catcher is directly on top of the plate. Just go to 1:48, hit period (.) to see frame by frame.
So if the catcher can’t put himself in position to tag the runner out then a runner on third can score at any time. Furthermore the batter appeared to know that the runner was attempting to steal home because he backed away from the plate. If there was no batter there’s no interference. The batter was not in the box when the pitch was delivered.
The batter was in the box when the pitcher began his motion and the umpire did not call time for the batter. Therefore it is a pitched ball and since the catcher takes away any chance the batter could swing at the pitch, it is interference.
The batter is not required to remain in the box when the pitch is thrown. The catcher cannot position themselves on or in front of the plate on a pitch. This catcher did that. The pitcher should have stepped off before throwing home. End of story.
Irrelevant though. The pitch wasn't legally delivered in any case. Pitches have to cross the plate (or specifically, have to enter foul territory between first and third base) to be legal (unless it is hit or hits the batter obviously)
@@teebob21 correct, I made the distinction of him being in the box at the start because you can’t make a pitch without him in the box. Whatever he decides to do once the pitcher starts his motion, needs to be sanctioned by the umpire. No one called time, no one disengaged, interference all the way.
The catcher can't put himself in position to tag the runner out when a pitch is coming across the plate. Once the ball passes the plate, he can put himself into a position to tag the runner. If the pitcher steps off the rubber, it's not a pitch, so the catcher can put himself into a position to tag the runner as he sees fit. So a runner on third cannot score at any time. They still need to fool the pitcher well enough to force them to make a pitch, and then beat the pitch.
ETA: Also, the batter was in the box when the pitch was delivered. Delivery begins at windup, not at release.
All I can say, after wtchng so much Hcky recntly: if tht’s th corect call, It’s a Bad Rule!
So you want catchers to be able to jump in front of the plate to get pitches?
@@rickhaavisto9023 in ths case th batter had completely stepped out of th box, knowing th steal was in progress, b4 th catcher moved up to field th pitch/throw, wtf else was he sposed to do?
Either not throw home as a pitch if you want the catcher to field it quickly or the catcher needs the ball to completely pass the plate at least
@@rickhaavisto9023 I’m no basebl rules savant, but as I said, in Ths Case! th batter had vacated th box, & had no intention of swinging @ th pitch, was not interfered wth in any way, b4 th catcher stepped up, & as I see it, was actualy behind th plate whn he caught th ball, so Again, in ths case if tht’s th correct interpretation of th rule, it’s a bad rule! I can certainly see tht in some instances th catcher in tht position would be interfering wth th batter, but not in ths case!
@@rogerchaufornier9916 The NCAA has made it clear that they’d rather err on the side of giving CI calls to batters who may have had no intention of swinging rather than having it so batters feel they have to swing to get the call
If this was Bryce the big mouth Harper batting, ……. Wham
Ok…if I’m batting, ….. ‘’ oops I’m sorry catcher, but I was only swinging at the pitch, I didn’t mean to knock you head off’’
This has actually happened.
This narrator has the most annoying voice and sense