Quote:
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]