Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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,