[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...