Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Furthermore, in discussing 6.06(c) JEA continues:
Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts...
This JEA quote would support that batter interference occurs only when a catcher made or attempted to make a play.
What I find interesting is those taking the point of view (in the situated original shown) that the batter should be called out for batter interference went to JEA for reference, used other data from JEA, but failed to highlight this data. Could it be that this obvious part of JEA was merely overlooked?
It appears to me that it may be more important to some to show only that which is important to winning a debate versus that which may be of pertinence to the discussion.
I do not take JEA or J/R as gospel, however, I have been ridiculed by some for wishing to "dismiss" it. I do not intend to imply that JEA is right or wrong here. I will add, however, that in this situation JEA concurs with every teaching ever provided to me. That is, for batter intereference to occur, there must be a play or attempted play by the catcher. I realize many at eUmpire disagree with me and the listed authoritative opinion.
|
Steve, IMO you have entirely missed the import of the word "
encompasses" in the JEA quote. That word means "
includes" but that does NOT necessarily limit the generality of the interpretation of interference to those acts ALONE in which the catcher is actually making a play! The provision "includes" ALL acts of the catcher trying to retire a runner, but it does NOT
ipso facto "exclude" acts of the catcher which will NOT directly retire a runner, such as simply catching the pitched ball (fielding), or returning it to the pitcher (throwing). Both of these acts can specifically be interfered with, whether or not a play is being made on a runner in the process. The whole tenor of OBR 6.06 is that we are talking about ILLEGAL ACTION by the batter. Illegal actions under this provision are punished irrespective of whether they prevented a play on a runner.
Your repeated assertions, that those who hold opposing views to your own are somehow being duplicitous in their use of authoritative opinion, are really getting more than a little OLD for me, Steve. Can you please hum a different tune next time? In this case you have resorted to the very tactics you have previously eschewed; quoting an authority which you have formerly refused to accept in order to "win" your argument. The shame is that we keep reminding you that this is NOT a contest, although there certainly are
winners and
losers. The "losers" are the ones who consistently refuse to listen to the voice of experience and so fail to profit from the knowledge it conveys.
Cheers,