MLB Ejection 054 - Tripp Gibson (2; Kurt Suzuki)

3B Umpire Tripp Gibson ejected Angels manager Kurt Suzuki (catcher's interference call on Logan O'Hoppe by HP Umpire Dillon Wilson; QOCY) in the top of the 7th inning of the #Athletics-#Angels game. With one out and none on, A's batter Henry Bolte attempted to check his swing on a 3-2 sinker from Angels pitcher Brent Suter, called a strike by HP Umpire Wilson and then catcher's interference with the batter awarded first base. Replays indicate batter Bolte's bat made contact with Angels catcher O'Hoppe's mitt during the check swing, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the A's were leading, 7-3. The A's ultimately won the contest, 9-3.

This is Tripp Gibson (73)'s 2nd ejection of 2026.

*Official Baseball Rules Definition: "Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

*OBR 5.05(b)(3): "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out when the catcher or any other fielder interferes with them."

This is the 54th ejection report of the 2026 MLB regular season.

This is the 32nd manager ejection of 2026. Ejection Tally: 33 Managers, 8 Coaches, 14 Players.

This is Los Angeles' 4th ejection of 2026, 1st in the AL West (LAA 4; OAK? 2; SEA, TEX 1; HOU 0).

This is Kurt Suzuki's 2nd ejection of 2026, 1st since April 11 (Adam Beck; QOC = Y [Run Lane INT]).

This is Tripp Gibson's 2nd ejection of 2026, 1st since May 18 (Will Venable; QOC = Y-c [Obstruction]).

Wrap: LA Athletics of Los Angeles vs Los Angeles Angels of LA, 6/26/26 | Video as follows:

Catcher's Interference No-Call in TOR-NYY ALDS

Blue Jays catcher Alejandro Kirk did not interfere with Yankees batter Trent Grisham in Game 3 of the Toronto-New York ALDS, following a Replay Review that upheld HP Umpire Jordan Baker's interference no-call as Grisham's bat came awfully close to making contact with catcher Kirk's mitt.

With none out and none on in the bottom of the 3rd inning of Game 3, batter Grisham attempted to check his swing on a 2-2 knuckle curve from Blue Jays pitcher Shane Bieber, ruled ball three. 

Upon Replay Review as the result of a manager's challenge by Yankees manager Aaron Boone, HP Umpire Baker's call was upheld, with Replay HQ ruling "call stands" as to the question of catcher's interference. 

Specifically, clear and convincing evidence did not exist to indicate whether or not catcher Kirk interfered. Because of the "call stands" ruling, we know the Replay Official judged the play solely on the merits of whether or not Grisham's bat made contact with Kirk's mitt.

The Official Baseball Rules defines catcher's interference as defensive interference: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."

Because replay only concerned itself with potential batt-glove contact, the judgment call as to whether hinderance actually existed (beyond the question of whether contact occurred) was not on the table.

In high school (NFHS), catcher's interference is called catcher's obstruction, as NFHS defensive interference is specifically an act that occurs prior to the pitch.

OBR 6.01(c) specifies the penalty for catcher's interference: "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided they advance to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with them."

Video as follows:

Phillies Win on Walk-Off Catcher's Interference

A walk-off win due to catcher's interference in Philadelphia left some Boston fans perplexed as Phillies batter Edmundo Sosa's bat made contact with Red Sox catcher Carlos Narváez during a 2-2 pitch, HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott announcing Replay Review's verdict over the stadium PA much to the delight of the home crowd. Because the bases were loaded at the time of the interference, all runners advanced and the tied game ended in the 10th inning.

Catcher's interference is defined more broadly as defensive interference in the Official Baseball Rules: "an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch." In high school (NFHS), catcher's interference is called catcher's obstruction, as NFHS defensive interference is specifically an act that occurs prior to the pitch.

OBR 6.01(c) specifies the penalty for catcher's interference: "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided they advance to and touches first base) when the catcher or any fielder interferes with them."

It is a rules myth that the batter must actually legitimately swing for catcher's interference to be called. For instance, catcher's interference also occurs when a catcher steps on or across home plate prior to the pitch's arrival, whether or not the batter actually swings at the pitch. Instead, catcher's interference occurs when the catcher's physical positioning (of body and/or glove/mitt) deprives the batter of the opportunity to choose whether to swing or not.

Because batter Sosa is said to have been deprived of this freedom of choice by virtue of the bat-mitt contact, the Replay Official overturned the on-field no-call and awarded the interference penalty, resulting in a walk-off win.

Video as follows:

Trio of Plays - Close Calls and Replay Reviews

In this review, tmac looks at a trio of plays across baseball, including a line drive hit toward 3B Umpire Brian Knight on the left field foul line, a knob of the bat fair ball and challenged out call at first with umpires Quinn Wolcott & Junior Valentine, and a puzzler of a catcher's interference vs foul ball for Larry Vanover.

For Knight in Milwaukee, self-preservation comes first and the umpire jumps out of the way, initially killing play to call a foul ball before quickly convening the crew and changing the call to a fair ball, which was the proper ruling.

In Cleveland, HP Umpire Wolcott observes a batted ball off the knob of the bat as opposed to a hit-by-pitch while 1B Umpire Valentine rules on a bang-bang play at first, an out call confirmed via Replay Review.

In San Francisco, HP Umpire Vanover sees a play wherein the bat hit the catcher's mitt...but was not actually catcher's interference. Replays indicate the batter's bat, after fouling the pitch away, recoiled backward and into the catcher's mitt, rendering this a foul ball and overturned call.

Video as follows:

LSU Catcher's Interference During Steal vs South Carolina

South Carolina scored its 11th run vs LSU on a 10th inning catcher's interference and balk call, umpires ruling that the catcher illegally interfered with the batter by prematurely jumping on home plate prior to a pitch arriving during which a runner attempted to steal home. 

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.

Throughout the 15-minute delay as a result of the umpire's call and subsequent LSU protest (yes, college still has protests, no protesting a judgment call still should result in denial), the broadcast focused on the catcher's positioning at home, claiming he was not "on or in front" of home plate.

Rather than engage too much with this argument, we instead turn to a different rule that brings us to the same conclusion. NCAA 8-2-e-2 discusses catcher's interference that occurs when any runner is attempting to steal a base: "[A stealing runner at any base] shall be awarded the base the runner is attempting to reach."

As for the balk component, R3 is awarded home plate either via balk or because of attempting to steal the base when catcher's interference occurs while R1 gets second base because the batter becoming a runner on the catcher's interference award forces R1 to advance.

For reference, defensive interference is defined as "an act by a fielder (usually the catcher) that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch" and replays indicate this catcher jumped in front of the batter, blocking his access to home plate (and the pitch) prior to the pitch's arrival. The batter had no free choice at this point to swing or not swing (and before arguing the batter must swing, think about it...requiring the batter swing here means catchers will get seriously injured...).

After the play as LSU set up to appeal R3's missed base touch of home plate (ruled "safe"/no miss by the umpire), R2 ran toward third base in an attempt to draw a throw, since all appeals must occur during a live ball (in OBR/NCAA) and be made before any subsequent pitch, play, attempted play.

Drawing a throw to third would thus be a play or attempted play and close the window on the appeal on old R3 at home. Nonetheless, the umpire ruled R3 safe because even though the runner didn't touch home plate during the initial play, the interference and obstruction rules allow umpires to award base touches in order to nullify the act of interference or obstruction.

Video as follows:

Consecutive Catcher's Interference Calls Doom Angels

Consecutive catcher's interference awards against Angels catcher Matt Thais helped Boston rally to beat LA at Fenway Park, with the Red Sox benefiting from a baseball rule not usually seen at the MLB level but enforced two times in the 8th inning by HP Umpire Cory Blaser.

Blaser actually had three different catcher's interference calls in the same game: one against Red Sox catcher Connor Wong during Angels batter Shohei Ohtani's 2nd inning at-bat and two catcher's interferences against Angels catcher Thais during Boston batter Raimel Tapia and Reese McGuire's 8th inning at-bats to produce two consecutive Boston baserunners awarded their bases due to the same rules infraction.

Catcher's interference (CI in OBR, NCAA; known as obstruction in NFHS) ordinarily occurs when a batter's bat makes contact with a catcher's mitt during a swing attempt and is defined as a defensive infraction which prevents a batter from hitting a pitched ball. The default penalty for catcher's interference is a dead ball and first base award for the batter, although in some cases the interference can be ignored after-the-fact.

For example, if the batter despite the catcher's interference hits a home run, the interference is ignored and the home run stands. If the batter hits a sacrifice fly, the offensive team manager can choose to accept the default catcher's interference penalty (an award of first base, runners return) or to decline the penalty and accept the result of the play (sacrifice fly, run scores).

Official Baseball Rule 5.05(b)(3) formally declares this: "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out when the catcher or any fielder interferes with them. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that they elect to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play."

The catcher's box extends eight feet in back of the point of home plate, and the lines are considered part of the box: catchers can back up if they feel they are too close to the batter in an attempt to avoid interfering with the batter's swing.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 152 - Vic Carapazza (4; Aaron Boone)

HP Umpire Vic Carapazza ejected Yankees manager Aaron Boone (catcher's interference call [no challenges remaining]; QOCN) in the bottom of the 5th inning of the #Rays-#Yankees game. With two out and none on, Rays batter Taylor Walls swung at a 3-2 fastball from Yankees pitcher Frankie Montas, HP Umpire Carapazza ruling catcher's interference. Replays indicate Walls' bat did not appear to make contact with Yankees catcher Kyle Higashioka's mitt, the call was incorrect. The Yankees were out of manager's challenges because of an unsuccessful challenge filed by Boone one half inning earlier on a stadium boundary (catch/no catch) play. At the time of the ejection, the Yankees were leading, 1-0. The Yankees ultimately won the contest, 2-1.

This is Vic Carapazza (19)'s 4th ejection of 2022.

This is the 152nd ejection report of the 2022 MLB regular season.

This is the 82nd manager ejection of 2022.

This is New York's 11th ejection of 2022, 1st in the AL East (NYY 11; TOR 9; BOS 6; BAL 4; TB 3).

This is Aaron Boone's 7th ejection of 2022, 1st since August 7 (Ed Hickox; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Vic Carapazza's 4th ejection of 2022, 1st since August 7 (Matt Blake; QOC = N-c [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: New York Yankees vs Tampa Bay Rays, 9/4/22 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejections 141-142 - Wendelstedt, Wolcott (DET x2)

2B Umpire Hunter Wendelstedt ejected Tigers manager AJ Hinch (Replay Review decision/catcher's interference call; QOCY) in the top of the 5th and HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott ejected Tigers pitcher Joe Jimenez (balls/strikes) in the top of the 6th inning of the #Angels-#Tigers game. In the 5th, with one out and one on (R1), Angels batter Justin Upton attempted to swing at a first-pitch sinker from Tigers pitcher Matt Manning, ruled a foul ball by HP Umpire Wolcott and overturned to catcher's interference as a result of a Manager's Challenge by Angels manager Joe Maddon. Replays indicate Upton's bat made contact with Tigers catcher Dustin Garneau's mitt as the pitch arrived at home plate, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Tigers were leading, 9-2.

In the 6th, Tigers pitcher Jimenez gave up a single to Angels batter Phil Gosselin, and walked Angels batters Jared Walsh and Upton. Replays indicate of the 11 callable pitches thrown by Jimenez, all 11 were properly officiated (100% accuracy), the call was correct. At the time of Jimenez's ejection, the Tigers were leading, 10-5. The Angels ultimately won the contest, 13-10.

This is Hunter Wendelstedt (21)'s 6th ejection of 2021.

This is Quinn Wolcott (81)'s 3rd ejection of 2021.

Hunter Wendelstedt now has 19 points in the UEFL Standings (15 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 19).

Quinn Wolcott now has 12 points in the UEFL Standings (8 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 12).

Crew Chief Hunter Wendelstedt now has 11 points in Crew Division (9 Previous + 2 QOCY = 11).

These are the 141st and 142nd MLB ejection reports of 2021.

This is the 68th manager ejection of 2021.

This is the 57th player ejection of 2021. Prior to ejection, Jimenez's line was 0.0 IP, 3 ER, 2 BB.

This is Detroit's 1/2nd ejection of 2021, T-4th in the AL Central (CWS 6; KC, MIN 4; CLE, DET 2).

This is AJ Hinch's 1st ejection since April 3, 2019 (Ron Kulpa; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Joe Jimenez's first career MLB ejection.

This is Hunter Wendelstedt's 6th ejection of 2021, 1st since July 28 (Scott Servais; QOC = N-c [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Quinn Wolcott's 3rd ejection of 2021, 1st since June 4 (Luis Rojas; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Los Angeles Anaheim of Angels vs. Detroit Tigers, 8/19/21 | Video as follows:

Kershaw & Profar's Catcher Interference Dispute

After HP Umpire Tom Hallion called "strike three" on Padres batter Jurickson Profar's 3-2 check swing to seemingly end San Diego's 4th inning, Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw and Profar shouted at each other, SD convinced catcher's interference had occurred as Los Angeles accused the Padres of playing dirty.

Situation Handling Side Note: As Kershaw and Profar shouted across the diamond, the umpiring crew went into game management mode, with Hallion attending to Kershaw, Umpire Phil Cuzzi taking Dodgers Manager Dave Roberts and 1B Umpire Cory Blaser standing in front of Profar.

As for the catcher's interference play itself, which Padres Manager Jayce Tingler challenged and was overturned from strike three to catcher's interference as a result of Replay Review, tmac just days earlier had assembled an analysis regarding a check swing catcher's interference call in Seattle, with the moral of the story being that, yes, catcher's interference is possible on a check swing.

Related Post: Teachable - Catcher's Interference on a Check Swing (4/13/21).

Kershaw-Profar takes it a step farther, as replays did clearly and convincingly indicate that Profar's bat indeed made contact with Dodgers catcher Austin Barnes' mitt...but the question is whether Barnes had actually interfered with Profar's opportunity to strike the pitch (the Official Baseball Rule's definition is as follows: "defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch").

Over the years, it has become clear that a batter need not actually swing for a catcher's interference call to occur, but at what point of the ball traversing through the hitting zone does catcher's interference cease to be a liability to the defense? Must the batter have a realistic chance of actually hitting the ball (either fair or foul) or has this become a black-and-white did the bat make contact with the glove kind of a play?

Regardless, Profar would not have been awarded first base for catcher's interference had umpires ruled that Profar intentionally swung at Barnes, in order to draw the call, instead of legitimately attempting to strike at or check his swing at Kershaw's pitch.

Video as follows:

Teachable - Catcher's Interference on a Check Swing

In our latest Ask the UEFL turned Tmac's Teachable Moments, we answer the question, "can you have catcher's interference on a check swing?" As Tmac explains, yes such a call is possible and we visit HP Umpire Nick Mahrley in Seattle for an example of such a play.

After Mariners batter Tom Murphy attempts to check his swing on a 1-2 offering from White Sox pitcher Dallas Keuchel, HP Umpire Mahrley hears two sounds as the baseball enters catcher Yasmani Grandal's mitt as immediately calls "Time" to acknowledge the dead ball.

As we view the play in slow motion, it becomes apparent that the batter's bat made contact with the catcher's mitt and we turn to the rulebook for an answer.

The Official Baseball Rule's definition for interference states, "defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch" and as we wrote in Case Play 2018-3, a batter need not actually swing for catcher's interference to be called. In this situation, the batter's check swing is arrested by contact with the catcher's paraphernalia before the catcher actually catches the pitch, suggesting that interference did indeed occur.

Related Post: Case Play 2018-3 - No Strike, No Balk, No Steal [Solved] (5/10/18).

CI is enforced through OBR 6.01(c) ("batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out; if a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play").

Video as follows: