|
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
|