7.07 vs. 6.08c

[Blaine Gallant]

OBR guys.

In reading the BRD, the catcher's interference with a runner stealing home is covered nicely. While I never put the two rules together, I always knew there was a conflict between this situation and others where a runner besides R3 was stealing.

So for clarification, if I understand this correctly:

Play 1, with R2 and R3, - R3 is stealing, catcher's nterference, BR is thrown out. 7.07 takes precedence, and R2 is awarded 3rd even thought he was not moving , nor forced.

Play 2, R1, R3,
R1 stealing, catcher's interfernce, BR out. Here, BR 1st, R1 to second (he is forced, but if not would have gotten the base as he ws stealing), but R3 stays.

While I understand that 7.07 is supposed to supercede 6.08c CMT, my real question is where did this rule come from , or why was it added? It does not seem to make sense. With R3 on the move, he will score on the interference. So why give the offense a base (in this case R2) one that they don't deserve?

Blaine

[bob jenkins]

I don't think 7.07 *supercedes* 6.08(c) CMT at all. In fact, I think 7.07 should be deleted from the rule book.

I suspect it was added before the comments, and was meant to cover R3 *only*. In that situation, the two rules give the same result (R3 scores, BR to first).

That's JMHO. I don't think I've ever seen it (or if I have, both R2 and R3 were running).

[Bfair]

Okay, Blaine, you caught my attention as I actually had your play #1 occur to me this past Saturday while doing a Fed game (scrimmage). As PU, I scored R3 and put BR at first and left R2 at 2nd (as he was not stealing). I wanted to say that just to point out that some of these off-the-wall plays DO occur.

I would take OBR 7-07 exactly as written in that the catcher needs to come out of the catcher's box to interfere or the catcher contacts batter or bat-----as opposed to bat contacting the catcher. The infractions of 7-07 being quite obvious acts specifically caused by F2.

Just my opinion,

[Jim Porter]

Blaine,

There are two schools of thought with this situation among the authorities.

1. 7.07 was left in the book in error, and should be stricken from the text of the OBR.

When the rulesmakers adopted the newer 7.04(d) and 6.08(c), they neglected to remove 7.07. Since 7.04(d) and 6.08(c) cover what happens when a runner is stealing and there is catcher interference, 7.07 is overkill, it should not be a balk, and it is in the book in error.

Papa C. falls into this camp, along with several other famous names.

2. 7.07 was left in the book to add a harsher penalty for when fielders interfere with the batter during a suicide squeeze play. This harsher penalty is a balk, and all runners advance one base regardless of whether or not they were stealing at the time of the interference.

Jim Evans falls into this camp, along with several other names as well.

______________________________

Onto my opinion:

This is quite rare. It would be bizarre indeed to see a squeeze play take place, and see R1 or R2 stay put. I think we can all rest assured that we won't have to actually make an on-field decision about this controversy.

With great respect toward Papa C., I do not doubt that 7.07 was left in the book in error. As a matter of fact, Jim Evans does not contradict this idea. However, as long as amateur coaches can read, and as long as they're still getting copies of the rulebook, I can hardly ignore 7.07.

I would love to have the luxury of striking 7.07 from the book. I actually believe that it should be stricken from the book. The problem is, I would be all alone in my local area with this ruling. No one else knows it, and it would be hard to convince a local amateur protest committee of my beliefs.

I'll be calling a balk if this 7.07 situation ever happens. Sorry, Papa C.!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
Okay, Blaine, you caught my attention as I actually had your play #1 occur to me this past Saturday while doing a Fed game (scrimmage). As PU, I scored R3 and put BR at first and left R2 at 2nd (as he was not stealing). I wanted to say that just to point out that some of these off-the-wall plays DO occur.

That is the correct ruling in FED -- 8-3-1c

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

That is the correct ruling in FED -- 8-3-1c

And it's not the correct ruling in NCAA -- 8-3o.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
There are two schools of thought with this situation among the authorities.

1. 7.07 was left in the book in error, and should be stricken from the text of the OBR.

When the rulesmakers adopted the newer 7.04(d) and 6.08(c), they neglected to remove 7.07. Since 7.04(d) and 6.08(c) cover what happens when a runner is stealing and there is catcher interference, 7.07 is overkill, it should not be a balk, and it is in the book in error.

Papa C. falls into this camp, along with several other famous names.

2. 7.07 was left in the book to add a harsher penalty for when fielders interfere with the batter during a suicide squeeze play. This harsher penalty is a balk, and all runners advance one base regardless of whether or not they were stealing at the time of the interference.

Jim Evans falls into this camp, along with several other names as well.

I've got to say, Jim, that I too am in Evans' camp on this one. I think there are good and valid reasons for the extra penalty that OBR 7.07 applies, when R3 is attempting to score by means of a squeeze or steal in the circumstance outlined by the rule. I don't know so for a fact, but I am prepared to believe that OBR 7.07 was left in quite deliberately, and not at all in error.

The circumstances described in OBR 7.07 are NOT normal catcher's interference as described in OBR 6.08(c) and 7.04(d). They are very specific circumstances that include the act of a fielder stepping on or in front of home plate without the ball and without actually making contact with the batter. The effect of that act is to deprive the batter of any opportunity to offer at the pitch, and to actually prevent the pitcher's throw from ultimately becoming a pitch by definition, since it never reaches the batter. That is why this offense is a balk; because it also breaches OBR 8.05(a) - the pitcher never finally delivers the pitch to the batter.

I don't dispute or discount Evans' reasoning that the harsher penalty also applies because of the R3 attempting to advance on a squeeze or steal. But I certainly DO dispute that the provision was left in erroneously, given the distinct differences in its wording. This is also the provision that prevents F3 fielding in, for example, from cutting off the pitch for the purpose of attempting to retire R3 in such circumstances, and you could hardly term THAT action as "catcher's interference". No, OBR 7.07 is there because it covers its own unique set of circumstances and not because the rule maker's failed to take it out erroneously, IMHO.

Carl, if you remain in the first group on this then I guess we will have to A2D. It won't be the first time, despite opinions to the contrary. (grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 13th, 2001 at 07:07 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Warren,

I've been 'round and 'round on this one so many times over the last three years that I swore, if it ever came up again, I would simply present both sides of the story and move on. So, I did.

There are valid arguments on both sides. There are big names on both sides.

And, for sake of fairness, even though Carl believes that 7.07 should be stricken from the book, he has indeed presented the opposite interpretation as official in his BRD for Pro ball. It is a testimony to the accuracy of his book when the man can put all personal feelings aside in the interests of presenting accurate and official information.

I will respond to two points you made, because I am a glutton for punishment.

You said 7.07 has, "very specific circumstances that include the act of a fielder stepping on or in front of home plate without the ball and without actually making contact with the batter."

This is always interference by the catcher. This is not somehow special, as you seem to imply. This would be interference whether there's a runner on third, or another base, or no runners at all! Anytime the defense deprives the batter of his right to offer at a pitch it is interference. I am unimpressed by 7.07's, "specific circumstances."


You also said, "This is also the provision that prevents F3 fielding in, for example, from cutting off the pitch for the purpose of attempting to retire R3 in such circumstances, and you could hardly term THAT action as 'catcher's interference'."

No, it's not catcher's interference - it's defensive interference - anytime - - not just when there's a runner stealing from third. Even though we call it catcher's interference most often, it is really defensive interference.

You'll note that, "catcher's interference," does not even appear as one of the four types of interference as outlined by OBR 2.00 INTERFERENCE. We all are simply so accustomed to the more routine type of defensive interference by the catcher that we all call it catcher's interference. The name is a misnomer, the implications of which I had not pondered until your post here.


Here's the reality:

The only time 7.07 is any kind of a harsher penalty is when a boob of a runner fails to steal at the same time as his teammate R3 is stealing home. That's so very rare, so unusual, and bizarre, that 7.07 is no kind of a harsher penalty at all.

Under normal, everyday, conditions, 7.07 is useless. If the rulesmakers really did intend a harsher penalty, they did a lousy job of it. They would have been better served to create a harsher penalty based on more routine circumstances, if a harsher penalty was truly their intent.

Think about it.

Nope, no intelligent rules committee would create such a third world harsher penalty, if a harsher penalty was truly their intent. They simply forgot to take it out of the book. It's not the first time that's happened, you know.

Dammit, and I swore to myself...

[Jim Porter]

In the June 2000 Referee Magazine there appeared an article reporting that a 7.07 violation is not subject to the same manager's option as other types of defensive interference, and also not subject to the same delayed dead ball status as a balk.

Nullify that home run if it's hit. You've got a harsher penalty to enforce.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
You said 7.07 has, "very specific circumstances that include the act of a fielder stepping on or in front of home plate without the ball and without actually making contact with the batter."

This is always interference by the catcher. This is not somehow special, as you seem to imply. This would be interference whether there's a runner on third, or another base, or no runners at all! Anytime the defense deprives the batter of his right to offer at a pitch it is interference. I am unimpressed by 7.07's, "specific circumstances."

Ah, you'll forgive me if I choke a little on this one, Jim. If the fielder doing the stepping on or in front of home plate is NOT the catcher, how can you say this is "always interference by the catcher"? {My underline} Did you miss my point that it doesn't HAVE to be the catcher that breaches this provision? Did you also miss the point that there doesn't have to be any interference with the batter per se, only with the pitcher's delivery of the pitch to the batter?

You also said, "This is also the provision that prevents F3 fielding in, for example, from cutting off the pitch for the purpose of attempting to retire R3 in such circumstances, and you could hardly term THAT action as 'catcher's interference'."

No, it's not catcher's interference - it's defensive interference - anytime - - not just when there's a runner stealing from third. Even though we call it catcher's interference most often, it is really defensive interference.

And your point is? Of course it's defensive interference, but in this case, with a runner specifically on 3rd base and stealing, it is also a balk because the pitch is prevented from reaching the batter, and so the batter had NO opportunity to offer (or not) at the pitch. OTOH, OBR 6.08(c) and 7.04(d) deal with defensive interference with the batter in particular, with a presumption that the batter had at least some opportunity to make a play on the pitch despite the interference, and so that a pitch was actually delivered to the batter. I guess it all comes down to how you define interference with the batter. I'm not sure the two are always identical.

Here's the reality:

The only time 7.07 is any kind of a harsher penalty is when a boob of a runner fails to steal at the same time as his teammate R3 is stealing home. That's so very rare, so unusual, and bizarre, that 7.07 is no kind of a harsher penalty at all.

Under normal, everyday, conditions, 7.07 is useless. If the rulesmakers really did intend a harsher penalty, they did a lousy job of it. They would have been better served to create a harsher penalty based on more routine circumstances, if a harsher penalty was truly their intent.

Think about it.

Nope, no intelligent rules committee would create such a third world harsher penalty, if a harsher penalty was truly their intent. They simply forgot to take it out of the book. It's not the first time that's happened, you know.

Dammit, and I swore to myself...

Okay. How many times these days do you see a "spit" ball, "shine" ball, "emery" ball, etc.? How many times would you see an attempt at the hidden ball trick if it wasn't an offense for the pitcher to take the rubber without the ball? Because a play no longer occurs doesn't mean it couldn't. Because a rule appears to cover "3rd world" plays, doesn't mean it's useless. When it was created it may have served a purpose we no longer see to understand, but remove it and see if its original purpose resurfaces!

I'm still not prepared to concede that "they simply forgot to take it out". And I HAVE seen this rule applied in real life, AND make a huge difference to the defensive team that made the error. No R2 wasn't stealing at the time, but I don't think that makes him a "boob". He was heading back toward second after being bluffed there by the F6 moving to the bag. It almost cost the defensive team a District League Championship Final, too.

Perhaps we'll just have to A2D here, Jim. (grin)

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
In the June 2000 Referee Magazine there appeared an article reporting that a 7.07 violation is not subject to the same manager's option as other types of defensive interference, and also not subject to the same delayed dead ball status as a balk.

Nullify that home run if it's hit. You've got a harsher penalty to enforce.

Hey, if that batter can hit a home run off a thrown ball that NEVER reaches him, he can have it for mine no matter WHAT OBR 7.07 says! Ok?

And if a play follows the picked off pitcher's throw that the offensive manager WANTS to take in preference to the balk and R3's run, I'd be happy to let HIM have that one too! (grin)

I still maintain the real significance of OBR 7.07 over OBR 6.08(c) and 7.04(d) is that the ball does NOT reach the batter (so its a balk) and the batter isn't specifically physically interfered with (but the pitch is). Is that drawing too fine a point on it? Maybe. Is it so far-fetched that it cannot account for the retention of this rule in the book? I don't think so, Jim. (BIG grin).

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 14th, 2001 at 12:36 AM]

[Jim Porter]

Warren,

You said, "If the fielder doing the stepping on or in front of home plate is NOT the catcher, how can you say this is "always interference by the catcher"?

Because it would always be interference by the catcher. It would also always be interference by the first baseman or third baseman, too. Common sense dictates that those are the only players who could interfere in this way (according to Jim Evans.) But it is always defensive interference whether it was F2, F3, F5 or F9, and whether a runner was stealing home, third, second, or even if there were no runners. This is always defensive interference. 7.07 creates nothing special in that regard.

I already explained once that we all call defensive interference, "catcher's interference," because, more often than not, that is what it will be. I will be more specific with my language for you.

Now, don't get me all wrapped up in semantics. Stick to the issue.

You also said, "And your point is? Of course it's defensive interference, but in this case, with a runner specifically on 3rd base and stealing, it is also a balk because the pitch is prevented from reaching the batter, and so the batter had NO opportunity to offer (or not) at the pitch."

What you said here doesn't make any sense to me, Warren.

7.07 does not specify that a balk is to be called only when the pitch is prevented from reaching the batter. 7.07 is invoked even in the case of more ordinary defensive interference, where the catcher's mitt gets in the way of the batter's swing. It is the runner stealing from third which creates a 7.07 call, and nothing else.

More from you, " I guess it all comes down to how you define interference with the batter. I'm not sure the two are always identical."

I don't define interference with the batter - Rule 2.00 INTERFERENCE does. And, I must say, its language is among the most unambiguous in the entire book. You can't find any gray areas here, Warren. The fact of the matter is, everything described under 7.07 fits quite neatly into the very defintion of defensive interference. Everything that constitutes defensive interference in 7.07 also constitutes defensive interference in Rule 2.00 INTERFERENCE, 6.08(c), and 7.04(d).

The only act not defined in 7.07 as a requirement for invoking that penalty would be if a defensive player set up in the batter's line of vision for the purpose of distracting said batter. And this is certainly not more harsh, it is more lenient. Although the runner would still score because he was stealing at the time of the interference, no balk would be called. There's nothing harsher about that.

I cannot imagine a runner being bluffed back to second base on a play where the runner is stealing from third. All the action is at home plate, and the runner has a third base coach right there. I'm sorry if you might be friends with that runner, Warren, but his really BAD baserunning deserved to have him left on second base. Yes, he was a boob. So the harsher penalty covers boobs.

I never agree to disagree, Warren. I simply disagree. "Posh to all that politically correct nonsense," I say.

Still friends?

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Hey, if that batter can hit a home run off a thrown ball that NEVER reaches him, he can have it for mine no matter WHAT OBR 7.07 says! Ok?

And if a play follows the picked off pitcher's throw that the offensive manager WANTS to take in preference to the balk and R3's run, I'd be happy to let HIM have that one too! (grin)

I still maintain the real significance of OBR 7.07 over OBR 6.08(c) and 7.04(d) is that the ball does NOT reach the batter (so its a balk) and the batter isn't specifically physically interfered with (but the pitch is). Is that drawing too fine a point on it? Maybe. Is it so far-fetched that it cannot account for the retention of this rule in the book? I don't think so, Jim. (BIG grin).

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 14th, 2001 at 12:36 AM]

Hooley dooley!

Warren, when's the last time you read 7.07?

You know that it also says, "or touches the batter or his bat."

I don't know where you are getting this idea that 7.07 is only invoked when the ball is prevented from reaching the batter. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Sir - - respectfully, of course. I always try to be polite when telling someone they're full of hooey. But you're coming from the back of Bourke on this one. (grin)

7.07 is there for the mullets and berks. Don't pull a tanti, chuck a spaz, and don't get narky on me. You know I'm quids-in with this one. I'm bein' straight-up. Struth, Mate.

Time for me to choof off now. I'm going to slip out of my blunnies, pop open a tinnie, and see what's on auntie.

We're still cobbers, eh?

[Carl Childress]

Guys:

This is truly a no brainer. The newer statute rules. Here's the history:

Catcher's interference penalty: batter is awarded first, runners forced also advance. Runners not moving and not forced remain.

So clever catchers would interfere when the batter tried to bunt a runner home. (Remember the old days, when a walk, a steal, a ground out, and a squeeze always produced a run?)

Arrives to the rescue 7.07 (1920). Catcher's interference penalty: BR to first, score R3. But the runner wasn't forced home. So let's figure out a way to score him. Easy: "That's a balk!" (Life was simple after the Great War but before the Great Depression.)

So far, just fact.

Speculation (both informed and authoritative -- grin):

With no outs, a great bunter tries to advance R2. The catcher [deliberately] interferes with B1. Penalty: Great bunter B1 goes to first, and R2 stays at second. He wasn't forced, and he wasn't trying to score. Thinks the catcher: Let's hope that B2, a terrible bunter, will pop into a double play.

So arrives, by degrees, 6.08c (1955, 1964). Now, any runner stealing gets to keep his base if the catcher interferes.

Hey, fellows, if any runner stealing gets to keep his base, 7.07 is truly superfluous. There is no longer need for the balk. All it can ever do is advance a stupid runner from second to third.

Harry Wendlestedt told me in Orlando he remembered such a play happening to him in the minor leagues. "Harry," says I, "7.07 or 6.08c?" Harry laughed: "6.08c. The son of a bitch should have been running."

Warren: You can yell and holler all you want, in English or Australian, but the effect of the two statutes is the same except for the distinction I drew above: R2 stays or goes, depending on who is calling the game.

Hell, I agree with Harry!

[Warren Willson]

Jim and Carl:

That's the sound of my white flag being waved furiously over this debate. YOU WIN. You have convinced me that OBR 7.07 is a pig in a poke, and I ain't gonna buy it no way no how.

In the case of the runner from 2nd in that District final I mentioned, he was decoyed back toward 2nd while F1 was just standing set, and was still leaning back when F1 pitched and R3 went from a long lead. No R2 wasn't a friend. In fact, his coach and I were to become avowed enemies. This guy knows so little about the game that even the title coach is too good for him. Maybe he didn't even tell R2 the steal was on, who knows?

Jim:

You went and got yourself a Macquarie Dictionary and Thesaurus, right? Either that or you've been holding out on your old china! (grin) "mullets and berks", "pull a tanti", "chuck a spaz", "get narky", "quids-in", "straight-up", "Struth", "choof off", "blunnies", "tinnie", "see what's on auntie", "cobbers"? My, my, James, we HAVE done our homework! (BIG grin) I can't believe you went to so much trouble for little ol' ME! It's enough to make a bloke bawl! Of course we're still cobbers, mate.

Carl:

So are you going to add this one to your list of statutes that are affected in their enforcement by knowing the history and tradition, as you promised HT? I would.

I still think the language difference exists between the two statutes, but I no longer think OBR 7.07 was intentionally left in. Maybe the harsher penalty of having a "stupid" s.o.b. advanced even when he wasn't stealing is still somehow legitimate, but I can now see that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the light of the current alternative statutes. So if Harry says leave the sucker where he is then that would do me, too.

Cheers,