NCAA baseball catchers interference rule is garbage... Mich TTech Game

[RougeDawg]

Umpire just took Michigan out of a man on 2nd no outs with a catchers interference where catcher appeared to initiate contact. Batter was falling down with his feet still in the box. He may have been an inch or two over the line with his upper body but an umpire cannot make that call

[ShotgunDawg]

It's a bad rule that'll be changed after this year, but umpires are in a bad spot till then.

[RougeDawg]

This home plate ump has been far from stellar all around. Hope we do not get him at any point. He has a floating zone and there is little consistency.

[Homedawg]

Umpire just took Michigan out of a man on 2nd no outs with a catchers interference where catcher appeared to initiate contact. Batter was falling down with his feet still in the box. He may have been an inch or two over the line with his upper body but an umpire cannot make that call

By rule he got it right. But I'm not sure how you say the catcher initiated contact. He just tried to throw. Now he barely got bumped. But that's still interference by rule.

[RougeDawg]

By rule he got it right. But I'm not sure how you say the catcher initiated contact. He just tried to throw. Now he barely got bumped. But that's still interference by rule.

Hitters feet were still in the box and looked like his body was still over imaginary line over box. Catchers foot looked to be touching batters box line. If he steps forward and now sideways, no contact. That?s what I?m talking about. The catcher did not make his move directly toward 2B. That is usually when they call interference.

By definition of said rule the catcher could have to dig a ball out from behind batters box and try to throw through hitter, if you interpret it to the letter. How is a batter supposed to avoid that?

[Commercecomet24]

Unfortunately with the current rule it doesn't matter if the hitter is in the box or not. If the ump determines he interferes in or out of the box he's out.

[RougeDawg]

Unfortunately with the current rule it doesn't matter if the hitter is in the box or not. If the ump determines he interferes in or out of the box he's out.

Understand that completely. It?s garbage and the umpire does not have to call it. Needs to be changed and added to review situations. That could have been a huge play.

[Homedawg]

Understand that completely. It?s garbage and the umpire does not have to call it. Needs to be changed and added to review situations. That could have been a huge play.

If it had been reviewed it would have just been confirmed.... he doesn't have to call it, but it was right. So imo, you can't start deciding which rules you are going to enforce arbitrarily.

[RougeDawg]

If it had been reviewed it would have just been confirmed.... he doesn't have to call it, but it was right. So imo, you can't start deciding which rules you are going to enforce arbitrarily.

That would not be called interference in big leagues. I mean change the rule to a catcher has to make his move to 2B without going through batters box. Currently as it stands the catcher apparently has priority over batter innatters box.

[Commercecomet24]

That would not be called interference in big leagues. I mean change the rule to a catcher has to make his move to 2B without going through batters box. Currently as it stands the catcher apparently has priority over batter innatters box.

The problem on that play was the hitter fell backwards and there was contact made. Most umpires never call interference no matter what happens . My sons a catcher and I've watched him have to battle all kinds of hitters little tricks to cover a base runner, from diving across the plate to swinging after he's already caught the ball to "accidental" hip checks as he's trying to make a throw. Catchers as a general rule get the crap side of the stick when trying to throw lol

[RougeDawg]

The problem on that play was the hitter fell backwards and there was contact made. Most umpires never call interference no matter what happens . My sons a catcher and I've watched him have to battle all kinds of hitters little tricks to cover a base runner, from diving across the plate to swinging after he's already caught the ball to "accidental" hip checks as he's trying to make a throw. Catchers as a general rule get the crap side of the stick when trying to throw lol

I understand all arguments. If a bass runner is protected in the runners box a hitter needs protection in batters box. Just seems arbitrary on when the offensive player has protection and when they do not. Needs to be changed and more well defined next season.

[Commercecomet24]

I understand all arguments. If a bass runner is protected in the runners box a hitter needs protection in batters box. Just seems arbitrary on when the offensive player has protection and when they do not. Needs to be changed and more well defined next season.

Yeah It's a tough call and generally the hitter gets the benefit of the doubt this time he didn't.

[Homedawg]

The problem on that play was the hitter fell backwards and there was contact made. Most umpires never call interference no matter what happens . My sons a catcher and I've watched him have to battle all kinds of hitters little tricks to cover a base runner, from diving across the plate to swinging after he's already caught the ball to "accidental" hip checks as he's trying to make a throw. Catchers as a general rule get the crap side of the stick when trying to throw lol

Yep. The hitter fell into him. The catcher didn't go through the hitter as he put it.... just didn't

[shoeless joe]

Thread title is misleading. You?re talking about batter interference not catcher interference

[Homedawg]

Thread title is misleading. You?re talking about batter interference not catcher interference

Batter

[Todd4State]

Didn't they institute the Ethan Small rule midseason? About the leg pumping? They should have done the same here.

[RougeDawg]

Yep. The hitter fell into him. The catcher didn't go through the hitter as he put it.... just didn't

The hitter was still in the ?batters box?. At what point does a batter or runner lose his protection when he remains within the area he has been granted protection? H

He could flail like a flounder and still be within the batters box. Does that make it interference when the catcher initiates his move to 2B? Seriously if this is your thinking and the rule, I would instruct my catcher to go out of his way to make contact with any batter on a steal.

[smootness]

The hitter was still in the ?batters box?. At what point does a batter or runner lose his protection when he remains within the area he has been granted protection? H

He could flail like a flounder and still be within the batters box. Does that make it interference when the catcher initiates his move to 2B? Seriously if this is your thinking and the rule, I would instruct my catcher to go out of his way to make contact with any batter on a steal.

It's a judgement call. If a batter flails around in the box, that will be interference. Would you like it to be different in that case?

Interference is a judgement call and always will be. And that's just fine. If a catcher goes out of his way to hit a batter, the ump should be able to see that and avoid calling anything.

[Commercecomet24]

The thing is batters interfere with catchers all the time and it hardly ever gets called. They don't need to change the rule they actually need to enforce it better and and call obstruction more often.