Guys:
This is truly a no brainer. The newer statute rules. Here's the history:
Catcher's interference penalty: batter is awarded first, runners forced also advance. Runners not moving and not forced remain.
So clever catchers would interfere when the batter tried to bunt a runner home. (Remember the old days, when a walk, a steal, a ground out, and a squeeze always produced a run?)
Arrives to the rescue 7.07 (1920). Catcher's interference penalty: BR to first, score R3. But the runner wasn't forced home. So let's figure out a way to score him. Easy: "That's a balk!" (Life was simple
after the Great War but
before the Great Depression.)
So far, just fact.
Speculation (both informed and authoritative -- grin):
With no outs, a great bunter tries to advance R2. The catcher [deliberately] interferes with B1. Penalty: Great bunter B1 goes to first, and R2 stays at second. He wasn't forced, and he wasn't trying to score. Thinks the catcher: Let's hope that B2, a terrible bunter, will pop into a double play.
So arrives, by degrees, 6.08c (1955, 1964). Now,
any runner stealing gets to keep his base if the catcher interferes.
Hey, fellows, if
any runner stealing gets to keep his base, 7.07 is truly superfluous. There is no longer need for the balk. All it can ever do is advance a stupid runner from second to third.
Harry Wendlestedt told me in Orlando he remembered such a play happening to him in the minor leagues. "Harry," says I, "7.07 or 6.08c?" Harry laughed: "6.08c. The son of a bitch should have been running."
Warren: You can yell and holler all you want, in English or Australian, but the effect of the two statutes is the same
except for the distinction I drew above: R2 stays or goes, depending on who is calling the game.
Hell, I agree with Harry!