- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Catcher's Interference Rule?
Posted on 5/30/24 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 5/30/24 at 1:42 pm
Does someone have a link or know the rule number for the catcher's interference/balk call from the SC game?
5
Posted on 5/30/24 at 1:47 pm to frogpond11
NCAA Rule 8-3-p states, "If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference." The equivalent rules throughout the levels are OBR 6.01(g) and NFHS 8-1-1e.1.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 1:51 pm to frogpond11
Exact Text of rule copied and pasted from official NCAA rulebook
I have a copy of the book in df form, just don't know how to link a file like that here.
I can email it to you if you'd like.
quote:
p. If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on
or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference.
PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.
I have a copy of the book in df form, just don't know how to link a file like that here.
I can email it to you if you'd like.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 2:46 pm to Nutriaitch
What does it saw about what happens when the batter steps out of the box on a pitched ball?
Posted on 5/30/24 at 3:18 pm to doubleb
quote:
What does it saw about what happens when the batter steps out of the box on a pitched ball?
quote:
b? Abattershallnotleavetheirpositioninthebatter’sboxafterthepitchercomesto the set position or starts the windup unless permission is granted by the umpire?
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.
1) The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout the
time at bat?
Exceptions—A batter may leave the batter’s box but not the dirt area
surrounding home plate when:
a) The batter swings at a pitch?
b) The batter is forced off balance or out of the box by the pitch?
c) A member of either team requests and is granted time?
d) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base?
e) A batter feints a bunt?
f) A wild pitch or passed ball occurs?
g) The pitcher leaves the dirt area of the pitching mound after receiving
the ball?
h) The catcher leaves the position to give defensive signals?
so it's not an "automatic" strike like some are saying. the umpire must call whatever the pitch is.
the "interference"** call makes the result of the actual pitch itself (ball/strike) not relevant.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 4:30 pm to Nutriaitch
What does the rule book say about the original judgement call on the field being overturned after the players left the field and a 5 minute commercial break, only after the other manager complained? Did the umpire get a call from Birmingham based on video review of a play that is not eligible for review? Even if video review, it does not appear to be clear evidence that the catcher was in front of the plate to receive the ball.
Bottom line: The original judgement call should have stood.
Bottom line: The original judgement call should have stood.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 4:43 pm to Nutriaitch
Fixed it
quote:
p. If, on an attempted squeeze play or steal of home plate, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball or touches the batter or the bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the catcher with interference. If catcher plays for LSU, he can not step to the side of home plate either. PENALTY—The ball becomes dead, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference, the run scores and all other runners advance one base.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 7:15 pm to Clockwatcher68
Posted on 5/30/24 at 7:37 pm to doubleb
quote:The real question is , if the batter left the box before the catcher int/balk happened , is it safe to say it was strike 3(is there an auto strike when batter leaves box when live?) and 3 away and ball becomes dead before the other stuff occured?
What does it saw about what happens when the batter steps out of the box on a pitched ball?
This post was edited on 5/30/24 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:27 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
d) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base?
I was not aware of these rules that removed the batter’s obligation to remain in the box. It appears that item 1(d) shown above would make it permissible for the batter to leave the box.
The catcher is a defensive player and the catcher was making a play on a runner at home plate. Therefore the batter can leave the box.
That being said, the catcher did not have his foot on, or in front of home plate. There was no foul by the batter and no foul by the catcher. The correct call was the one initially made by the home plate umpire. Out at home via a tag.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:35 pm to KC Tiger
Why make a rule that lets you stand all above and around the plate, but not touch it?
Is it a reasonable interpretation that the rule means the catcher can’t take a step forward? I mean it was a pitch and there’s a batter to think about, even if he stepped away this time.
I don’t understand why touching the plate should be significant.
Is it a reasonable interpretation that the rule means the catcher can’t take a step forward? I mean it was a pitch and there’s a batter to think about, even if he stepped away this time.
I don’t understand why touching the plate should be significant.
This post was edited on 5/30/24 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 7:30 am to holdem Tiger
forget the plate, forget the batter moving out of the box.
The catcher prohibited the batter from making a free swing at the ball.
The catcher prohibited the batter from making a free swing at the ball.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:08 am to ifyoubuildit
quote:
What does the rule book say about the original judgement call on the field being overturned after the players left the field and a 5 minute commercial break, only after the other manager complained? Did the umpire get a call from Birmingham based on video review of a play that is not eligible for review? Even if video review, it does not appear to be clear evidence that the catcher was in front of the plate to receive the ball.
Bottom line: The original judgement call should have stood.
This.
It blows my mind that somebody isn't held accountable for this. As Jay has said multiple times since, the main problem is that the call was made on the field of out, no discussion was being held between umpires after the call, SC took the field to warm up, then the SC coach goes and tells the umpires what they supposedly missed. Jay has also said repeatedly that the umpires did NOT see Neal cross the plate.
- Even if this play was reviewable, I've watched the replay 100 times, it's a situation that is at best 50/50 and the call would "stand" as called due to lack of sufficient evidence to overturn(doesn't meet the standard of irrefutable video evidence to overturn). Neal may have had a toenail over the plate but it's not clear from any angle I saw.
- I assume Jay isn't lying about the umpires saying they didn't see it, if that's true, then what are they basing the reversal of the call on? What the SC coach said..? Ya know.. the coach of the team that it benefits to have the call reversed. The only other option I can think of is somebody telling the umpires in their ear piece what they saw on video and that they should reverse the call, but is this even allowable? That would seem to constitute a review and this wasn't reviewable.
- There's a time limit to when you can officially "challenge" a play on a normal reviewable play. The fact that the SC coach didn't come out to even speak to the umpires until his defense had warmed up 5 minutes later at least goes completely against this.
- That being said, this wasn't even a reviewable play! How in my mind this wasn't a 2 second conversation where the ump tells him it's not reviewable and to go back to the dugout is beyond me.
So much wrong with this that it seems nobody will be held accountable for or answer to at all.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:12 am to ifyoubuildit
quote:
What does the rule book say about the original judgement call on the field being overturned after the players left the field and a 5 minute commercial break, only after the other manager complained?
I'll have to do some digging through this book to see what (if anything) is specified about changing a call after an umpire conference, and timing, etc.
quote:
Did the umpire get a call from Birmingham based on video review of a play that is not eligible for review?
this conspiracy theory needs to die.
the umpires do not wear earpieces and have no way to receive anything from Birmingham while on the field.
quote:
Bottom line: The original judgement call should have stood.
I agree.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:15 am to rodnreel
Nope.
- The batter could have still attempted to swing.
- The catcher did not step on or in front of the plate.
It was a blown call. It happens in baseball.
- The batter could have still attempted to swing.
- The catcher did not step on or in front of the plate.
It was a blown call. It happens in baseball.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:15 am to frogpond11
CloseCallSports Lindsey broke this down well here
In the end, it was the correct call and the rule that everyone kept bringing up is irrelevant, it's 1 rule, but there's other catcher's interference rules. Neal ultimately did not let the batter any attempt to swing at the pitch, and it was a pitch being the key there, therefore it's catcher's interference and because someone was trying to steal home, it's a balk and the runner is awarded home.
I agree it was very confusing because the only rule kept getting brought up was the rule over being ON home plate or in front of it which Neal possibly wasn't, but there's other CI rule he broke which still awards home plate to the runner stealing home.
If Herring had stepped OFF then threw home it wouldnt have been CI at all. Since he made a PITCH home and Neal gave the batter no attempt at the pitch by stepping right in front of him, it's CI. Thats the key there.
In the end, it was the correct call and the rule that everyone kept bringing up is irrelevant, it's 1 rule, but there's other catcher's interference rules. Neal ultimately did not let the batter any attempt to swing at the pitch, and it was a pitch being the key there, therefore it's catcher's interference and because someone was trying to steal home, it's a balk and the runner is awarded home.
I agree it was very confusing because the only rule kept getting brought up was the rule over being ON home plate or in front of it which Neal possibly wasn't, but there's other CI rule he broke which still awards home plate to the runner stealing home.
If Herring had stepped OFF then threw home it wouldnt have been CI at all. Since he made a PITCH home and Neal gave the batter no attempt at the pitch by stepping right in front of him, it's CI. Thats the key there.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:22 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:22 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
CloseCallSports Lindsey broke this down well here
In the end, it was the correct call and the rule that everyone kept bringing up is irrelevant, it's 1 rule, but there's other catcher's interference rules. Neal ultimately did not let the batter any attempt to swing at the pitch, and it was a pitch being the key there, therefore it's catcher's interference and because someone was trying to steal home, it's a balk and the runner is awarded home.
I agree it was very confusing because the only rule kept getting brought up was the rule over being ON home plate or in front of it which Neal possibly wasn't, but there's other CI rule he broke which still awards home plate to the runner stealing home.
If Herring had stepped OFF then threw home it wouldnt have been CI at all. Since he made a PITCH home and Neal gave the batter no attempt at the pitch by stepping right in front of him, it's CI. Thats the key there.
I watched this video. What she presents makes sense. However, there was no indication that anybody took this into consideration at all when deciding what to do during the game.. additionally, the head of officials or whoever that was that gave the explanation after the game, also never brought it up. That leads me to think nobody even thought to consider this and were only looking at the "on or in front of the plate" rule. So in my mind, that's a moot point if it wasn't factored in.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:23 am to MarciMoshes
quote:
is it safe to say it was strike 3(is there an auto strike when batter leaves box when live?) and 3 away and ball becomes dead before the other stuff occured?
there is no "auto strike".
ball strike would be called as if the batter was still there.
the call of catcher's interference makes the pitch call irrelevant (same as if batter swung and hit the catcher).
so the batter stepping out in this situation ends up having no relevance to the call.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:27 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
quote:
Did the umpire get a call from Birmingham based on video review of a play that is not eligible for review?
this conspiracy theory needs to die.
the umpires do not wear earpieces and have no way to receive anything from Birmingham while on the field.
They definitely have earbuds/earpieces in their ears, clearly visible. I don't want to believe that's the way it happened...but, the only other option is that they just took SC's coach's word for it, right? If they didn't see it AND it's not reviewable, basically somebody ELSE is making the call..
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:32 am to frogpond11
Video of play if anyone wants to take another look.
Batter bails on the pitch as soon as the runner takes off. If the batter doesnt bail out so fast, I could see catchers interference. Batter is bailing before the pitch is even thrown.
Neal doesn't cross/step on/go in front of the plate until he has the ball.
Batter bails on the pitch as soon as the runner takes off. If the batter doesnt bail out so fast, I could see catchers interference. Batter is bailing before the pitch is even thrown.
Neal doesn't cross/step on/go in front of the plate until he has the ball.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News