Quote:
Originally posted by JJ
Sorry, Carl, I beg to differ. The statement you quoted verbatum was NAPBL 4.11 - the same statement I used to support my position. That statement said "no interference", and that's why I said it appeared we were on the same side. Your more recent post clarified that we are not on the same side. Obviously I DID miss something. I just didn't feel like I should have been jumped on for it.
|
JJ: As I clearly said in my post (where I quoted PBUC): The language of 4.11 is the same as the language of OBR. Since I used OBR as
my authority, it seemed obvious you were misinterpreting 4.11. That passage
adds nothing to the rule book save that with two strikes and
weak interference, the batter is out. We never had a disagreement about that.
Concerning the backswing: Evans has no comment and only one relevant play, which supports both our positions on weak interference:
Two strikes...one out...runner stealing second on the pitch. The batter swings and misses. He swings so hard that his follow-through contacts the catcher before the catcher can secure the ball. In the umpires judgment...the contact was unintentional. Whats your ruling? RULING: The batter is out on strike three. The ball is dead and the runner returns to first.
Of course, that illustrates one of the maddening traits of authorities. They are rarely complete in their rulings since they prepare an interpretation based on a specific case.
Here's a play where the batter's backswing hinders the catcher
"before [my emphasis] he can secure the ball." You and I (and everyone else) agree, for the ruling is directly in accord with OBR 6.06(c) CMT.
How hard would it have been for Jim to:
1. leave out "before he can secure the ball." In that case, any hindrance by the backswing would automatically be weak and JJ would be right. OR...
2. add a play in which the backswing hindered the catcher
after he secured the ball. Evans could then say....
A significant difference is that the runner in Evans is moving. One might infer that in a similar play, with the backswing contact occurring
after the catcher had the ball, that Jim would call interference after all.
Barring that, the only authoritative source that is also specific to the play in question is the comment from Jaksa and Roder, who take the same position I do.
But it's clear we'll A2D on this point.