[Jim Porter]

Dennis,

You said, "Jim, as I stated in my previous post, I wouldn't make the statement that the IFR is "totally" unprotestable"

I never argued such a point. In fact, an infield fly rule call might be protestable and it might not. It does depend on the situation.

But a balk call is always a judgment call. That doesn't mean that an umpire couldn't say something which turns it into a misapplication of the rules and cause it to become protestable. But the raw decision as to whether a balk occurred or not is purely judgment, and as such, not protestable.


You also said, "We know that the ball is not IMMEDIATELY dead on offensive interference (such as the case on a batter interfering with a catcher's throw)"

I don't know that. If interference, in fact, occurs, the ball is dead at the time of the infraction in every, single, solitary case.

It is only when possible interference occurs with a throw that we must wait to see if the throw reaches its destination and puts out its target runner. If it does put out the runner, then no interference occurred, and the ball never went dead. If it does not put out the runner, the interference is called and the ball is dead, retroactively, from the time of the infraction.

So, I repeat, if interference actually occurs, the ball is dead at the immediate moment of the interference - - even if that immediate moment must be considered retroactively.

So, then it becomes a question of mechanics. Learning to wait when the throw is possibly on target and the runner can possibly be put out. And if the intereference occurs, the ball was dead at the immediate moment the interference occurred.

That's what the rulesmakers meant. They didn't say it right, apparently, since so many umpires think it's some sort of mistake. But this is a basic idea that must be understood: If there's nothing to be interfered with, interference cannot occur. The throw put out the runner, where's the interference?