LSU Coach Ejected, Tigers Protest After Catcher's Balk in Extra Innings
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- CHECK OUT OUR ELITE HITTING AND FIELDING COURSES!
Click the link below to check out our swing course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE SWING and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseb...
Click the link below to check out our infield course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING AN ELITE INFIELDER and over 50 fielding drills!
antonellibaseb...
Click the link below to check out our hitting course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE HITTER and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseb...
Support our page by clicking the link below:
/ antonellibaseball
Antonelli Baseball is the #1 online resource for baseball instruction. If you would like to work with Matt Antonelli, or an Antonelli Baseball staff member, email him at matt@antonellibaseball.com
Follow Us Online!
Instagram: / antonellibaseball
Like Me on Facebook: / antonellibaseball
Check out our website: www.antonelliba...
Get our FREE hitting drill by clicking the link below!
antonellibaseball.mykajabi.com/hittingdrill
Batter should stay in box and offer to bunt. The pitcher threw a pitch. Which would keep the catcher back. If catcher moves up or touches batter it would be catchers interference.
If that would have happened the batter would be award first. Runner at third would go back.
Reason he didn’t is because he had no clue what was going on. Squeeze bunt here doesn’t make sense with 2 outs. Coach isn’t going to give him the signal to bunt because that could either (a) result in him actually bunting and being thrown out or (b) result in the catcher not stepping forward and not getting the chance for a free run based on the umpire’s judgement.
SCAR coach in post game basically admitted the point of this play was to try to get a favorable ruling based on something he saw on TV recently. This play makes no sense in any other case.
You generally don't want to make a snap decision to bunt on an 0-2 pitch with two outs. When you are not planning to bunt already, you are going to miss or bunt foul more often than not. Strikeout, inning over.
@@gwilki2 If the batter would have hit the catcher interference and he would have been at first and runner back at third.
@@user-wp5rx8ig5l Wrong. Runner stealing is awarded the next base. (Also, CI during a squeeze or steal of home has its own rule the charges a balk to the pitcher, so all runners advance.)
I’ve been involved in baseball, playing in my younger years and an active fan , for many decades and this is the first time hearing about a catcher causing a balk.
As a catcher, you absolutely have rules that violation results in a catchers ball. #1…leaving the catchers box,before the pitch is delivered on an intentional walk.
One key element here is that the pitcher pitched the ball from the rubber rather than disengaging and then throwing to retire the runner. Had he disengaged his pivot foot toward second base, then thrown home, the catcher's actions would have been entirely legal.
Good point because he would be making a play they would all be fielders. And the pitch is no longer an issue. It would be a throw to another Fielder to make a play.
Batter jumped out of box, therefore the pitcher was yes, still pitching, however ball was caught to tag runner, after batter disengaged by stepping out. Therefore, it shouldn't matter.
It was legal regardless. Catcher never touched the plate or caught before the crossing the front of the plate. It was a horrible call.
He threw a pitch he doesn’t have to disengage.
Would've been fine if the ump wasn't tryna make it an ump show yesterday
The batter should have just stayed in the box and tapped catcher with the bat. Catcher interference and balk. Run score, no issues.
It already was catcher’s interference as the catcher caught the ball before it had a chance to enter the strike zone. No need to swing
And the pitcher should have beamed the runner coming in from third!
@@josephgravina9834 The batter had already stepped out of the batters box!
@@josephgravina9834 The batter stepped out of the box. Strike 3 he's out.
@@josephgravina9834objectively false. You are wrong.
Thanks for the honest, non biased review. I think they'll change the rules around what can be reviewed. I think all plays that result in a run scored should be reviewable.
So question: does the hitter still have a chance to swing at that ball being thrown because that was a pitch to the hitter and not a throw to home for the tag out so to me the catcher would have been interfering with the hitter also?
It is not a case of traditional catchers interference since the batter did not offer at the pitch. But if the catcher steps on or in front of the plate, it is automatically catcher’s interference AND a balk.
@@MwD676 thats silly, but why didnt the batter offer? was it not legally a pitch? did he hate the baserunner? why did the batter bail on the play?
Batter states he was surprised to see teammate barreling towards home. I'm guessing he just reacted. 😂
@@scottmcshannon6821 it was a legal pitch and it never entered the zone so how do you call that a ball or a strike. either way the batter definitely should've "attempted" a bunt that hit the catcher and got the easy interference that way but that takes solid game knowledge and a split second decision.
Batter jumped out of box!
Matt, you quoted the OBR but this is an NCAA game. There is no mention of touching the plate or in front of the plate in the rule. The rule says it is interference if any defensive player interferes with the batter’s swing or prevents the individual from striking at a pitched ball.
A “Catcher’s Balk” is when the catcher steps outside the Catchers Box just before the pitcher delivers the pitch. The balk is given as a penalty to the pitcher and the runner is awarded an advancement base.
Not true according to the rule or the head of the officiating crew.
This wasn't a catchers ball, this was a Interference charged to as a balk
No batter in box?
@@Clover.404_ak It is catcher's interference and a balk. If it was a balk only, the batter would not get first base. The batter gets first base because of the interference.
The catcher does not have to interfere. The balk can also be called because the pitched ball does not cross the foul line or the plate. The catcher must let the pitch pass the plate before catching the ball. The pitched ball must cross a foul line or it is a balk, the rule is also applied if the pitcher drops the ball to the ground after coming set. I have seen the rule called before on squeeze plays where the catcher reaches out to catch the ball and apply the tag, but does not let the ball pass the plate.
What I want to know is whether the batter is required to get out of the way. If that was a pitch couldn't the batter stay in the box and swing at it?
I am pretty sure this was a designed play and the batter bailing was to encourage the catcher to step up and balk just like he did.
Batter should have owned the box. He could have tapped the catcher with a "swing," and this would have been simple interference.
This is Catcher's Interference, because the catcher interfered with the batters opportunity to swing at the pitch. The rule is written to include the Balk call because with a base open as in this instance, the catcher could interfere, and the batter gets first, but R3 would have to return to 3rd, (remember interference is a dead ball), so the Balk is included, to score R3, and keep the defense from exploiting a loophole in the rules. Remember the catcher is not allowed to leave the catchers box before the pitcher releases the ball. He clearly left forward, because he was partly OVER the plate while the ball was still in the pitchers hand! Correct call!!!!
No, that is wrong. On a steal of home when the catcher interferes, a balk is also called so all runners advance.
You should have mentioned that they called him out originally then changed their mind after both teams left the field, during the commercial break, without any sort of review.
Yes this is the most important point.
Yes. He was manipulated by the South Carolina coach.
It’s not a reviewable play, so unfortunately the crew had to call it on what they thought they saw
Plays that could decide the outcome of a game need to be reviewable....every other play is. SEC official in B'ham didn't want nothing to do with this play....
Matt, I love these videos featuring obscure and seldom-seen rules. I'm such a baseball nerd that if TH-cam was a high school hallway, bullies would kick my ass and take my lunch money.
This catcher did the same thing earlier in the tournament and it wasn't called. In that case it was a right handed batter and the catcher definitely got in front of the plate. If I'm the batter and the catcher jumps up like that I'm swinging.
Many people have said this, I'll add to the mix. Since this was a pitch, the catcher's balk is because he prevented the batter an opportunity to hit the pitch. Glove, leg, foot being in front of the plate have zero to do with this play. All runners advance 1 base. Had the pitcher stepped off, then threw home, the play would have been legit
You are wrong, the superviser of the umpires addressed this after the game.
@@ChineseBandits It's catcher's interference which on a squeeze play or attempted steal of home is also a catcher's balk. Batter to 1st on the CI, all runners advance, R3 awarded home
@@thenov44 I watched the game and the interview with ump after the game. You can call it whatever you want. Tigers won so I don't give a shit. However, it was a shit call, Millazo didn't step on or in front of the plate.
Batter was out of the box before no intent to hit anyways
The batter displayed full intent to not swing and to exit the batter’s box. No one perevented the batter from not swinging. As a matter of fact, the batter made it so clear that he wanted nothing to do with that pitch, I think the only possible other thing hybrid batter could have done was yell at the top of his lungs, “I’M NOT SWINGING! I’M LEAVING THE BATTER’S BOX! EFF ANYONE WHO SAYS I WANT THAT PITCH! I WISH THE WORST ON THE UMPS FAMILY IF HE THINKS I IN ANY WAY WOULD POTENTIALLY SWING AT THAT PITCH AS I AM CLEARLY LEAVING THE BATTER’S BOX! THE UMPIRE’S MARRIAGE IS AN OBVIOUS SHAM AS ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS SHOWER WITH ME AND GIVE ME NON-STOP FAVORABLE CALLS WHEN I’M AT THE PLATE. I’M SICK AMD TIRED OF ALL THE FAVORITISM THE UMP GIVES ME AMD NO I WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH HIM! I LEFT THE BATTER’S BOX, YOU FOOLISH UMPIRE!”
More importantly, but not mentioned in this video is what the batter he steps out of the batters box before the ball arrives to the catcher. He basically gives himself up as a hitter instead of staying in the box which would clearly make it interference by the catcher, but he doesn't he steps out of the box, they could've batter out easily
Matt, my question here is the pitcher never disengaged from the rubber so this should be considered a pitch correct? With that established could the batter have not step out of the box and easily drawn a catcher interface?
I have no allegiance to either team, so I'm being as impartial as I can be. To me, the batter is out of the box and the catcher, from what I can tell, doesn't touch the plate and isn't in front of the plate. Bad call by the ump.
thank you. the rule needs adjusting. especially if the batter is backing out of the box then there is no reason to call interference. that is also illegal to do. especially if the catcher never touched the plate or got in front of the plate before receiving the ball. once he received it he should be allowed to chase the runner down.
And initially the ump made the correct call, calling him out, but was swayed by the USC coach.
@linsen8890 I think what is confusing people is they think in front of the plate means he had to be in front of the entire plate. The plate starts at the tip so as soon as you step over any part of that plane you are in front of the plate.
@@cajunomics3 "If there is no runner on base and the ball does not cross the foul line, that is considered a “no pitch”. If there is a runner on base, than that is a balk." Even if you did not rule the catcher step on or over the plate the pitch would still be considered a balk. The batter backing out only matters if a pitch is delivered it would then be a strike, since no pitch was delivered here what he did is irrelevant.
@@chopa2less He did not though even if you give the catcher a pass the pitch still never made it to the foul line or the plate and would still be a balk.
Batter gives up the box instead of owning the box.
Catcher never goes in front of the plate.
Catcher doesn’t block the plate without the ball.
Catcher never touches the plate without the ball.
No interference or catcher balk should’ve been called. Clean play, runner is out!
Catcher is clearly over the plate the front of the plate is any portion of the plate, the second he stepped past the tip he was in front of the plate. The batter leaving the box is irrelevant as no pitch was delivered due to the balk.
His foot is clearly in front of the plate slightly off to the first base side but in front when he catches the ball. I believe they got this correct based on the rules.
@@tmiklos4 The Monster Milam made thing right!
The batter started to step out before the pitch.
Which is also illegal and should also void any "interference" call on the catcher. The rule needs to be adjusted.
I might could understand the
Rule if it was a close play but he was out by 20 feet
That should be an obvious CI. They might need to rewrite the rule, it doesn't make sense that the catcher can't step on the plate, but can step just as far out if he steps next to the plate. The catcher is blocking the batter either way.
Can’t be a CI when the batter bails out of the box.
Not when the batter jumps out of box first.
The batter got out of the box before the pitch was thrown which is also illegal and results in a penalty. They never had any intention of swinging. Their coach admitted he wanted this exact call which is absolute garbage. The rule needs to be adjusted and also it needs to be more clear if you are going to call it. If the batter is bailing out then it should be fair game to chase the runner back or tag him. He was out by a mile.
@@genesispuredeaf2390that doesn’t matter. 100% CI
@@twtarmo1270 so it is your understanding that a batter leaving the box doesn’t change anything? Kindly illustrate wisdom by citing that rule
The batter stepped out of the box. That's an automatic strike. He's out before anything else happens.
So, for example, if a pitcher throws a wild pitch at the batter and the batter jumps out of the way, out of the box, it's a strike? Dude.
Wrong
My guess is that his GLOVE is in front of the plate, and that's what's being called. As well, regardless of whether he touched the plate itself, his entire body is "on top" of it.
I don't know if that's the proper way to interpret the rule (I'm a soccer referee, not a baseball umpire), but that's my guess.
Reaching over the plate is illegal in NFHS. It is not in NCAA or Official Rules.
@@MwD676 i get that but if for whatever reason they deemed this not a catchers balk, what do they call the pitch? it never entered the zone so cant call it a strike, but it never reached the plate so cant call it a ball. Technically a pitched ball that doesn't reach the foul line (plate included obviously) is a balk too.
@@tw1nn319 Just another reason why balk was the correct call no matter how upset the fanboys are about it.
Right on 70 now and I have never seen this call before.
Crazy as it sounds, catcher's interference also happens in fastpitch softball, too and yes, like in baseball, catcher's interference can result in a catcher's balk. Not a traditionalist, but catcher's balks do happen in fastpitch softball, just like in baseball- you can't reinterpret that, any other way!!!
This was a great game to watch. Crazy comeback
I’ve never seen it, and even if it were reviewable, I’m not sure you’d have enough to overturn.
Tough decision.
I agree with some of the other commenters in that the pitcher never stepped off the rubber. This was a pitched ball and the catcher never gave the batter the opportunity to swing at the ball. I think the batter should have stayed in the box and attempted a light-hearted swing just to get that interference call
It was so close, plus I know whether the batter abandon the box or not is not a consideration.However, this rule has a point to protect the batter . Glad LSU won. Tough call.
Watch @closecallsports video on this to see that there are actually two ways to call this that both result in the same thing. There is the rule that Matt is talking about here that is specific to steals of home and squeeze bunts (NCAA 8-3). It has a clause about stepping on/in front of the plate. But then there is the general catcher's interference rule (NCAA 8-2) which has a more liberal definition: "If any defensive player... prevents the individual from striking at a pitched ball." Then the rules outline the penalty in this specific situation: "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."
If you want to argue that this catcher, getting up and moving to the spot he moved to, didn't prevent the batter from swinging, go ahead. But you'd be wrong (like the LSU coach).
It’s also a catcher balk if he reaches his glove across the plate and catches the ball before it crosses the front edge of the plate. This may be what happened here, although the angle does not give us enough to determine that.
Simply reaching over the plate is illegal in NFHS. (Catcher’s obstruction) It is not illegal in OBR or NCAA.
And it's also a penalty for the batter to step out of the box before the pitch is delivered. They were purposely trying to get this call which really cheapens it. Their coach admitted to this.
Reference that rule in ncaa
Why no one is talking about the batter exiting the batters box mid pitch with a 2 strike count is beyond me since that would result in a strike and consequently the 3rd out all before any type of interference or balk would have occurred, but we are talking about SEC Umpires.
The rule states the pitch has to be delivered for it to be a strike. Since it was a balk (also it never passed the foul line another reason for a balk) a pitch was technically never delivered.
The umpire initially got the call correct on the out from the runner stealing, but also failed to call the third strike on the batter for stepping out of the box as the pitch was made. The pitcher never balked so the batter and the third out should have been called thus ending the inning. The entire umpire crew was incompetent when it came to this fiasco they created. When the batter bailed out of the batters box during the pitch it nullified any interference call. The home plate umpire was right on top of the play and the other officials should a never been called into discuss this play they were in no way in any position to give their input on this no reviewable play. Also shows the level of incompetency of the league NOT to have any sort of play at the plate a reviewable call.
I want to know who either said he touched the plate or was in front. It's clear the home plate ump was not in position to have called that.
The catcher must be in the catcher’s box prior to the pitch. Does not matter if he is touching or in front of the plate, the mere fact that he left the box prior to the pitch is a balk, the run scores . By coming out of the box, he also obstructed the batter’s ability to strike at the pitch, therefore the batter is also awarded first base.
Home plate umpire initially called him out.
He had the best view, no other ump had a better view than him.
No one Gasca better view than the guy who has the giant catcher between him and the plate he’s supposed to be seeing??? lol
The home plate umpire if you zoom in has no real line of sight of where the catchers feet for knee was before the catcher caught the ball. After the catcher has the ball you can see the home plate umpire really examining catcher's position, but he has possession of the ball. So it's just a bad call from the home plate umpire!
I don't get why people call it a horrible call. The catcher jumped forward on a PITCH. The batter should have made it an obvious call by staying put and either show bunt or attempt a swing.
The reason it's bad is because the batter clearly steps out. Normally when this happens it's a strike which would have been strike 3 and out 3. This rule was exploited because there was a similar play recently and the HC knew about it and he argued the initial call, there was already a "judgment call" of out on the play but it was overruled after a conference of all umps and was made as unreveiwable since it was a judgment call of catcher's interference. The rule was correctly applied but the discussion is why was the decision made and the coach protesting a call that's not reviewable. This was a horrible call considering the time and situation and overturning of an initial call. I've never seen a run counted where the runner never physically touches home, have you?
When the batter jumped out of box, it makes the call a bad call. Had the batter stayed in the box, then yes.
What’s funny is the batter left before the pitch with both feet outside the box. Automatic strike 3. Catcher caught the ball behind the plate without touching. Umpires butchered this on every level.
@@beast4x4trd12 and yet the catcher jumpied out of his catchers box on a PITCH. Clearly the right call
There's no provision that states that a batter must remain in the box for a pitch to be offered so him stepping out of the box has no bearing on the catcher interfering... this was the right call. Like if a pitcher was in mid delivery and a batter stepped back without calling time and the ball was right down the center the umpire would call a strike...
I agree with @user-hz4, it’s a pitch to the batter not a pitch out also, so I would think the pitch should cross the plate before catcher could move forward not hindering batter’s ability to swing or bunt, same rule if the catcher moves glove forward on the plate and interferes with batters swing…. Just suppose if batter would have swung or bunted at the PITCH, the catcher would have made contact with the batter clearly
Impressive. Didn’t take you long to get that up.
1:21 right toes further forward than front of plate
So it's not a catchers balk if the pitcher steps off and throws? The rule exists I imagine just the same as catchers interference because if the catcher obstructs the hitter then it's essentially the same thing
I've made this call before because the catcher hindered the battery's ability to hit the ball before the pitch arrived.
The batter here was bailing out of the batter's box before the pitch was thrown which is actually also a penalty. The coach actually admitted to doing this play to get this exact call, so the batter was actually not interfered with. Especially considering they never had any intent to swing. It's such a stupid rule and puts the defense at an unfair disadvantage. This catcher never touched the plate or went out in front of it. It's really a call that did not need to be made given how the batter gave himself up on purpose and the play wasn't even close.
that would be a bad call without contact with the bat or batter, or stepping on or in front of the plate.. none of those happened here
@cajunomics3 yeah I was thinking about the batter being completely out of the box and no one is mentioning that
but HE DID NOT interfere in an way with the batter's ability to swing at the pitch.
Now we know that if you hit a home run and you don't touch home plate you can end up being called out if the defense team pays attention. But that catcher balk the runner never touched the plate.So does a run count.Or do they call him back out to touch the plate?So that way that the run counts?
If it is not a reviewable play then why did yhe umpire change the call?
This is rule
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 best view is at 1:21 and you can see his foot in front of the plate.
He's not touching the plate. It's not "tough to tell." You can see the ground between his leg and the plate until he has the ball.
1:20 It looked to me like the right foot was in front of the plate. It didn't look like he moved his foot at all after catching the ball until he took that huge step to his left. It's hard for us to see, but if the home plate umpire called it, he literally had the best possible view of it, as long as he was looking.
You should have your eyes checked
Looks like he caught the ball in front of the plate.. his right foot appears it may have actually gotten in front of the plate.. and the pitcher was throwing from the rubber.. that's a Balk.. the hitter as a left should have squared around to bunt and pulled it back.. cause he's clearly out of the way of the running.. he needs to stay in there just to keep a catcher honest.
He bailed out of the box illegally to draw this call. Their coach admitted to this. Which is really messed up and the rule needs adjusting.
I don't know which umpire made the call, but the home plate ump had his vision blocked and everyone else was over 90 feet away. There's no way anyone could say for certain that the catcher touched the plate. That's what makes it a bad call.
Next year they will probably add this play to what can be reviewed.
The catcher stepped forward and threw his arm out toward the batter, while the pitch was being delivered. The batter had no chance to swing at the pitch. That's textbook interference, and a runner stealing gets the base.
I'm just glad for the catcher that the batter didn't swing
😂 me too. But the yowling in these comments encourages, in the future, the batter just teeing off on the catchers back with the bat.
Spirit of the rule was violated, call it. Boom, good call. And they lost anyway so why are all the lsu bandwagonners so upset?
Here's the bottom line!! Is it very close to interference and simultaneously very close to possibly not interference, yes, without question. So, we have a play at the plate that happens in the blink of an eye, a bang bang play, if you will!! The batter currently at the plate is probably not a quality hitter, and the current count puts the team at bat in a massive disadvantage while transitioning further into extra innings. As an umpire I would choose the option of letting the teams play it out to decide the game, instead of making a stretch bulk call that by text book definition doesn't really occur. The catcher actually stayed off the plate from what I can see. In addition LSU had really mopped up South Carolina in that inning and handing them a highly questionable free run is just outside the spirit and intent of what an umpire is there for. The call that umpire made had only been called in one other collegiate game the entire season, that's a great time to hold your call and not try and make a call fit the game. As a side note, the batter didn't engage the pitch because he's a terrible hitter and he had been given the signal to clear the box.
My question is: how did the runner score when the runner never once touched home plate? He left the baseline after he was tagged and therefore the run should not have counted.
It's really close to being in front of the plate and it's a rule that no ump has a good view of, so you're going to get imperfect calls because they are forced to make a call with imperfect info.
Rules that cannot be determined from available information are bad rules. The ump did nothing wrong but can't tell exactly what's going on and is forced to make the call.
Shrug.
This play doesn't include the batter though that is something to consider. The biggest part of it is not where his feet are, but the catchers body. It is over the plate and can be considered "covering" even if the feet are in good position. I think that is what the umpires were calling.
i agree. if the batter wanted to offer at the pitch he would have no way of doing so. that's why its a catchers balk.
Batter steps out of box first.
@@cola3501 and catcher also stepped out of the catchers box
@@mptr1783
Then what's the issue? If simultaneously, then neither are wrong?
The batter stepped clearly out of the box, so the batter, I think, isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the equation.
Define in front of home plate...
- In front of the actual plate itself
OR
- Crossing the imaginary line, which is an extension of the leading edge of home plate
I saw this live haha chat was going crazy!! I don’t agree runner was out but there’s an old saying in baseball - “The ball never lies” resulting in LSU’s walk off! Umps were garbage the entire game what a come back by the tigers
That’s not a baseball saying
This was a pitch, not a pick off. If the batter doesn't bail out the catcher would prevent him from being able to offer at the ball. Batter could have gotten a free catcher's interference pretty easily by just trying to swing while the catcher was practically on the plate.
You have to look at it as "did the catcher hinder the batter's ability to hit the ball". It doesn't matter that the batter stepped out.
What hindered the batter’s ability to hit the ball was 1) he stepped out and 2) didn’t swing the bat. Very difficult to hit a ball walking away from the plate with the bat on your shoulder.
This is 100% the correct answer, the question of whether he is on the plate is irrelevant, this is a textbook catcher's interference/catcher's obstruction (depending on ruleset).
Typically catcher's interference is when the batter hits the glove with the bat, but we VERY MUCH don't want to force them to swing in this case.
@@CommonSense823 He stepped out in response to the catcher being in the way. Just because he didn't TRY to hit the ball/catcher, doesn't make this not catcher's interference.
Just about every casebook has a play just like this one, and the batter's actions after the catcher moves toward the plate are irrelevant, else coaches will start teaching the batter to swing, and cause awful injuries.
@@TheFreshmanWIT Bullshit. He stepped out in response to the runner coming home.
And what is the penalty for catchers interference? If he didn’t touch the plate or was in front of the plate, it’s not a balk. The run shouldn’t have counted. The batter goes to first, the runner on first goes to second. The runner coming home isn’t protected. There was nobody on second when this happened.
@@CommonSense823 you seem to misunderstand the rule. Why he stepped out doesn't matter. Just that if he wanted to swing he couldn't. Catchers interference penalty is every runner gets 1 base, as does the batter runner.
by diving out of the way this batter let the catcher off the hook, no interference. "Rule 6.01g Interference With Squeeze Play or Steal of Home. If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."
And the catcher wasn't clearly in front of the plate. The big fact everyone is missing is that this call was overruled after calling the runner out because the umpires had a meeting and one of them or multiple umpires said in their judgment the catcher was in front of the plate thus there's no review of this type of play and runner never even touches home plate. Definitely a weird play and crazy rule and horrible call by umpires but the first time I can remember seeing a runner/team given a run that the base runner never touched home. Crazy!
@@beast4x4trd12
The SC HC calls ump over, petitions call, then the umps conferred and call was changed. So, technically SC HC challenged/reviewed the call which isn't allowed, in this play according to rules.
@@cola3501hence they tried to cheat LSU. Ball don’t lie
Matt, you said it was interference on the catcher but shouldn't it be obstruction on him instead. I always thought the rule was interference on the runners and obstruction on the defense, the exceptionwould be catchers interference if the bat hits his glove or arm. If I am wrong please let me know.
Yes that's what I was thinking obstruction
It was both the batter got 1st base for catchers interference, 3rd based advanced for the balk.
The batter gave up the batters box voluntarily. Therefore, there should be no catchers balk whatsoever. Had the batter stayed in the box the catcher must maintain his position in the catchers box, and then only after receiving the ball. Can he move in front of the plate to apply the tag
Mr. bigshot UMP should have called a strike when the batter stepped out of the box.
This is a rare call - a "catcher's balk" - the catcher has to stay in the catcher box until the pitch is released.
The meeting of the referees looked like a clown show, and it was embarrassing, It doesn't matter because Milam mooned the entire crew at the end with that HR. Geauxmaha!
Good Lord, I would not want to be an umpire trying to make this call. Matt tried to parse it visually in slow motion and ended without much clarity, the plate umpire had an obstructed view, and the confluence of rules on this, as comments here illustrate, are mind-boggling.
Not sure what the college rules are for this but the pitch was never called by the umpire. I would think the rule says something like if the catcher receives the ball before it crosses the plate it’s a balk or illegal pitch.
But the book says nothing like that.
There is no call on a pitch that is ruled a balk. It also would not matter since it was ruled catcher’s interference.
Inconclusive replay. The left knee could be touching. From the umps viewpoint im not sure how he couldn't call it the way he did. Right leg looked legal, but think its the left touching thats the call.
@@2001kbyet they called an out on the field then huddled together to overturn the call without video replay. The umps abs everyone who thinks this is catchers interference should end fhemselves
It's the fact that the catcher's body was all over the plate; call it obstruction or catcher interference, or whatever, but there's no way the batter could have swung at the ball (if he wanted to) without killing the catcher.
However, the batter stepping out of the box adds another element to the equation, so I don't know.
If the any part of the catcher leaves the catchers box before a hit ball is hit, or caught by the catcher, it should be a balk and catcher's interference. This should include extending their glove beyond the front plain of the catcher's box. This seems like the right call and the intent of the rule, also if the pitcher had stepped off to throw the ball home it seems like there would be a case for runner's lane inference because he was blocking home plate without the ball.
His feet may not have been touching the plate, but his glove was definitely out in front when he caught it.
Batter should have stayed in the batter box and taken a swing at the “pitch”. He would surely have made contact with the catcher resulting in catchers interference. But as the play actually happened, with the batter stepping out and the catcher seemingly staying behind and/or on the side of the plate, no interference. Runner should have been called out.
This is a pitch not a pickoff move. The catcher is clearly in fair territory when he catches the ball and he was obstructing the batter.
Catcher steps on the plate with his 1st step w/his right foot. He then steps over
I still do not think it was a violation of rule 5 catcher interference, but a violation of rule 9 where a pitched ball must cross a foul line, if no runners are on base it is a ball if runners are on base it is a balk. The batter moves out of the box when the catcher moves forward (right foot first then left foot and clearly catches ball if front of the plate, especially clear on overhead view) to make a play so the batter in getting out of the way of the play does not violate any rule. Correct call.
He said the rule is interference and a balk. Which is two penalties. The runner should be safe on the balk, and the runner should get first for catchers' interference.
Does it matter that the batter stepped out of the batter's box before the catcher left the catcher's box much less got near the plate. I am just trying to figure out what happened here. Also the original call was out with both teams being sent to their dugouts. At what point was it changed? Who initiated the reversal of out to balk with catcher's interference? The commissioner said that the judgment call cannot be reviewed. If that is true, how was the original call of out at home plate reversed?
No, the batter fully stepped out of the box for the runner to steal home so it's considered a ball to catch the runner, not a pitch to the plate, I was present at the game so I saw what happened, it was first discussed when the umpires met the 2nd time out of 4 times as an official review, but no one could challenge it because they spent 20 mins in total about the specific play and the inning was "technically" over, the worst home plate umpire ever was the one who made the call to count the run and move each runner to the next base, being called a balk on the catcher, which was the incorrect call, should've stayed the same, hope that answers ur questions, but in the end it didnt matter to LSU, and the absolute worst umps ive ever seen
@@amookiecookie2303 why did the appeal for not touching home fail? You gotta touch home right? Why didn’t that make this video?
@@justinhill5830 the appeal failed cuz the umps spent too much time discussing the play that they couldn't make a call on it, they touched home because they believed they were fully in the clear from the first play, idk why it wasnt in the video, pretty weird to me, but that's from what I saw and LSU was perfectly fine doing that and the umps couldn't do anything but what they thought was obvious, that unfortunately was wrong
Depending on the written rule, the catcher's left chin guard might have been down in front of the plate. Other than that, I don't see it.
If the pitcher would have stepped off the rubber then threw home makes him a fielder and the catcher could then occupie the area around home plate. But in this case the pitcher finshed his pitch and the catcher moved into hitting zone causing 😮catcher interference.
“They” did not say the catcher touched the plate, the third base umpire 90 feet away said he did, and the call cannot be reviewed. This call was so bad, that umpire should be. Fired
The Catcher played that perfectly. It's clean he is not touching the plate at all. Terrible call.
The NCAA rule says it is interference if any defensive player interferes with the batter’s swing or prevents the individual from striking at a pitched ball. The part about stepping on or in front of the plate is the OBR rule.
Great call look at the eyes. As a umpire I at the same
Important thing your video doesnt show is, ump calls out, this is clear bc SC runners go to dugout and team is running ti field,
LSU clears the field to dugout getting ready to bat. Meanwhile, SC HC calls ump over and petitions whether or not catcher blocks plate. Ump changes call, at this point umps go to LSU dugout. So, SC reviewed and questioned play, ump changes call!? But then they tell LSU HC play cant be reviewed and ejects him?!?! What is the rule? Either it can be reviewed, call recalled, or it cant?!
Do you know what a ‘review’ is?
LSU protested the game because of this call and if they had lost it the protest would have never been upheld. Whether or not the catcher stepped on or in front of the plate is a judgement call, which cannot be protested. The rule was applied correctly if the catcher was judged to have stepped on or in front of the plate. Rule interpretations can be protested, judgement calls cannot be protested. I've seen this happen twice as a HS coach and umpire. As a coach it was called against the team we were playing. The head coach of the other team was ex Yankee Chris Chambliss' brother, Frank. He went ballistic and got tossed. The second time was a couple of years later when i was no longer coaching, but umpiring. HS summer league and I have the plate. Squeeze play is on and the catcher catches the pitch with both feet in front of home plate. I make the call and the head coach goes nuts. My partner is laughing so hard he retreated to the right field line to try and hide. I explained the rule and the ruling once and then ejected the coach.
I also had another play involving a squeeze play. In this instance I also had the plate in HS summer league game. Runner from third breaks too soon and the pitcher steps off and throws, not pitches, the ball to the catcher who is standing in front of home plate when he catches the ball. The runner i tagged out and the offensive goes wacko. He's arguing that it was a catcher's balk and the run should score. He was 100% right if it was a pitch and not a throw. I went so far as to call my partner over and ask him, in the presence of the coach, if the pitcher had stepped off. He confirmed what I saw and now the head coach is arguing with both of us. He spent the rest of the game in the parking lot.
It’s not a runner it’s the batter that was interfered . The batter knew it was coming, but it’s a gray area rule and they used it. Smart smart smart.
Look at the overhead view. By rule it's pretty obvious that he was on and in front of the plate. Correct call.
Just the opposite.
The hitter vacated the box, almost as if he was trying to make room for his teammate to take the plate. That's a strike. But, the runner is out.
Good call
Matt, you and others are focusing on whether the catcher was on or in front of home plate. The rule only states that the catcher (or any defensive player) commits the violation when they hinder the batter's ability to strike at a pitch. There doesn't have to be any contact, and whether he's on or past the plate doesn't matter. Yes, the batter moved out of the way, but the catcher went in front of him before the pitched reached home plate. The umpire does not need to judge whether the ball was hittable or if the batter intended to swing. The simple fact that the catcher moved to the position in front of the batter makes it catcher's interference. And this specific situation also charges the pitcher with a balk.
This was a pitch. Is it a ball, strike, or balk? If a pitch does not cross the plate (and isn't hit), it's a balk. The catcher prevents the pitch from crossing home plate. If it's not catcher's interference, it's still a balk, and all runners advance one base. Catcher's interference only changes if it's an 0-2 count or the batter is awarded first base.
The fact that it’s not one of the 14 reviewable options that umpires can look at is tough too. They just have to make a decision. I don’t think he was touching or in front of the plate. I think had the umpires had the option to review they may have switched I’m the ruling.
If the batter swings its catchers interference. Catcher was clearly in front of plate. Definitely an outlier. Heck of a call!
We have saying in football officiating- "don't be a plumber".
Was the umpire maybe thinking that adjacent to the plate is illegal? Because it's in front of (the back edge of) the plate?
This is what most people do not understand the tip of the plate is where the plate begins anything past that point is in front of the plate.
Never steal home with a left handed batter.
Wouldn't "in front of the plate" mean to the direction that the runner is coming from, i.e. the left side of the plate to block? Which he didn't do, either, so I don't get this call.
Well had the batter swung or laid a bunt it DEFINITELY would have been interference, batter didn't know what to do here. Tough call
its pretty clear that the catcher limited the batters possibility of a swing. Hell, this is a pitch and has to be called a strike or a ball. but it never even reached the plate. That is also a balk but its sort of a stretch, that's why a catchers balk had to be called here
@@tw1nn319 I get it now.. the broadcast didn't say anything about the batter, so I got tunnel vision on the runner and forgot that the ump was prob looking at the batter.
The call was right. The batter should have attempted to bunt and the catcher would have obviously interfered with that. There is no way that can be called a ball or a strike the way the catcher did it. LSU had no reason to argue that really.
Umps blew this call.