Even at that age, if the kid is skilled and brave enough to barehand a ball coming at him, I'd probably not award him the base, especially since the OP mentioned the pitch wasnt' traveling very fast. Now if the ball is traveling fast and right at his head and he catches the ball to protect himself, I'd be more inclined to award the base.

 

I'd have to see it. If it was Kelly Leak catch it like a joke, then yes. If he looked like he was doing it in self defense, then I'd still give him the base.

 

As a rule, I side with the hitter unless they are leaning into the pitch or hovering over the plate. I don't think you should reward a bad pitch.

I think it's awesome the kid caught the ball...

 

"That's all you've got??" :lol2:

I'm not sure the rule states that a batter must attempt to move out of the way of the pitch. The interpretation I know of only states that the batter cannot move into the pitch.

I'm not sure the rule states that a batter must attempt to move out of the way of the pitch. The interpretation I know of only states that the batter cannot move into the pitch.

 

The official baseball rules does state the batter must either make an attempt to avoid the pitch (or did not have an opportunity to avoid the pitch). NFHS rules just state that the batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him. Most interpret that as you can't just stand there and let the ball hit you...you must try to move. Both of these assume the pitch is outside of the strike zone. If it is in the strike zone, no base is awarded and a strike is called.

The official baseball rules does state the batter must either make an attempt to avoid the pitch (or did not have an opportunity to avoid the pitch). NFHS rules just state that the batter shall not permit a pitched ball to touch him. Most interpret that as you can't just stand there and let the ball hit you...you must try to move. Both of these assume the pitch is outside of the strike zone. If it is in the strike zone, no base is awarded and a strike is called.

 

If there is a baserunner and this happens...is the batter out for interference, as the catcher doesn't get a chance to make a play on the baserunner (pickoff or steal attempt)?

If there is a baserunner and this happens...is the batter out for interference, as the catcher doesn't get a chance to make a play on the baserunner (pickoff or steal attempt)?

 

It's only interference if the batter does something to prevent the catcher from throwing to a base to retire a runner. In this case, the batter catching the pitch, I think would be a dead ball, the umpire would return the baserunner back to his original base, and call either a ball or strike depending on where the pitch was. I wouldn't call interference because once the ball hits the batter, it's a dead ball, so there was no opportunity for the catcher to begin the act of trying to retire the runner stealing. Once there is a dead ball, there can be no interference. I think.

As to the location of the pitch...it was up and in. Kid was pretty much in an upright stance to begin with. Seeing it from the side, I honestly couldn't tell you how much movement it had going towards him. All we saw was him take his right (bottom hand off the bat), and pretty much nonchalantly catch the ball in front of him. Had he not caught it, would it have hit him? Well, based upon where he caught it, I'd say yes. But, given the speed of the ball, I'd say he'd have more than enough time to step/lean back out of the way. But, never really saw any type of that movement from him.

It's only interference if the batter does something to prevent the catcher from throwing to a base to retire a runner. In this case, the batter catching the pitch, I think would be a dead ball, the umpire would return the baserunner back to his original base, and call either a ball or strike depending on where the pitch was. I wouldn't call interference because once the ball hits the batter, it's a dead ball, so there was no opportunity for the catcher to begin the act of trying to retire the runner stealing. Once there is a dead ball, there can be no interference. I think.

 

Your understanding is correct.

 

I'd consider interference on a steal attempt if it was 100% obvious to me the batter wasn't going to get hit AND I thought he did it to prevent the runner from being thrown out. Rare.

Here's another scenario I saw this last weekend in a fall game. Runner on 2B. 1 out. Pitch gets away from catcher and bounces out towards 3B dugout. Runner heads toward 3B. Before he reaches 3B the on-deck batter picks up the ball and tosses it back to the pitcher. Make the call.

Here's another scenario I saw this last weekend in a fall game. Runner on 2B. 1 out. Pitch gets away from catcher and bounces out towards 3B dugout. Runner heads toward 3B. Before he reaches 3B the on-deck batter picks up the ball and tosses it back to the pitcher. Make the call.

 

Runner would be out for interference on the offense.

Runner would be out for interference on the offense.

 

OK. Now what if the runner wasn't stealing? Just took an aggressive secondary while waiting to see where the ball ended up? Or, didn't see the ball bounce away and was heading back to 2B. Does that change the ruling?

OK. Now what if the runner wasn't stealing? Just took an aggressive secondary while waiting to see where the ball ended up? Or, didn't see the ball bounce away and was heading back to 2B. Does that change the ruling?

 

If I thought the catcher had ANY chance of getting an out the runner would be out. Otherwise, I'm killing it.

Your understanding is correct.

 

I'd consider interference on a steal attempt if it was 100% obvious to me the batter wasn't going to get hit AND I thought he did it to prevent the runner from being thrown out. Rare.

 

Just as if the batter had leaned into the pitch to try and get a HBP. Dead ball, runner returns.

As to the location of the pitch...it was up and in. Kid was pretty much in an upright stance to begin with. Seeing it from the side, I honestly couldn't tell you how much movement it had going towards him. All we saw was him take his right (bottom hand off the bat), and pretty much nonchalantly catch the ball in front of him. Had he not caught it, would it have hit him? Well, based upon where he caught it, I'd say yes. But, given the speed of the ball, I'd say he'd have more than enough time to step/lean back out of the way. But, never really saw any type of that movement from him.

 

Sounds more like Kelly Leak....keep him in the box.

New question. Had our final makeup game yesterday afternoon, and had a situation arise that I've seen before with different umpires. Pitcher throws a low ball that the batter swings and misses for strike three, but the ball hits the dirt and ricochets up into the catcher's mitt.

 

Ump called the batter "out", (no tag or throw needed to complete the play).

 

However, in the rules the league actually post on their website, it says the following:

 

Legally caught” means in the catcher’s glove before the ball touches the ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is caught by the catcher on the rebound.

 

The “dropped third strike” rule is really the “if not legally caught” rule. If a pitch bounces at the plate and the catcher makes a clean catch, the batter still becomes a runner with the right to advance to first base because the ball was not caught BEFORE it struck the ground.

 

I was pretty sure this was the rule and asked the ump about it in between innings, and he said no, no, no, if they pick it cleanly it still "counts". I'm pretty sure that in MLB you still have to apply a tag, but is it different in High School? Trying to figure out why multiple umps are calling it this way.