[rex]

Carl,
I got all the facts now and all the scources.

It is agreed (by me at least) that the OBR and the PBUC manual say the same thing. The JEA agrees with the OBR and PBUC. You wish to use the J/R as your final scource of authoritative opinion and it also agrees with the OBR,PBUC, and the JEA.

There is an exception between the J/R and the other scources. That being the J/R calls back swing contact “interference without a play” where as PBUC says “a strike only (no interference)”

Terms such as “strong” and “weak” are not included in my copy of the J/R under this section. Therefore I must assume this is your exercise in editorial license.

It is true this section of the J/R does indeed discuss a situation that batter interference would NOT result in an out. In fact as you would concur there are 8 examples. Only number 8 would the batter be declared an out as this being the third strike. One example even told of a play that the runner(s) would be allowed to advance.

So as I see it every authoritative opinion is in agreement that there AIN’T NO OUT septin one. YOU

Now then lets take this thread full circle and go all the way back to Robert G’s original post with your answer.


B]

Originally posted by Robert G
I just finished a LL game 11& 12, I was Pu.
Runners on 2nd & 3rd B1 swings & miises & literally takes of f2 glove. Coach is screaming for interference so I check with my partener & he says yes there is interference, so I award B1 ist. The defense coach says he hit the glove after he swung on his follow through.Would that be interference? Also in either case if it were interference wouldn't both runners abvance.
I think the offense did not pick up on that.
As a new umpire with things happening so fast even at that level I find catcher interference A diifficult call.

Unless LL rules are different (and I don't think they are here):

If this indeed happened on the backswing, it cannot be "catcher interference."

1. If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp, it is batter interference; he is out and runners remain; if the contact prevented the catcher from catching the pitch, then it's weak interference: dead ball, runners remain.
2. Unless runners are moving on the pitch or are forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, they do not advance.

[/B][/QUOTE




None of the above named scores say anything about the “ball firmly in his grasp” as it pertains to the back swing. Nor do they say anything about “contact preventing the catcher from catching the pitch” As it pertains to the question and contact on the back swing. It’s a dead ball nobody moves up and it ain’t nothen to the batter UNLESS it’s the third strike. In other words HE AIN’T OUT.

Then me Cobber tuned in and adds “fielding and throwing” to the formula. Stating under OBR 6.06© it is an illegal action. This is true in all cases but the back swing. By all (but now two) authoritative scores fielding / throwing and firmly grasping have nothing to do with back swing contact. All but two say we got nothen. HE AIN’T OUT.

Now we got Jim P weighing in with the quote from the J/R.



[...]If a batter contacts the catcher, or his mitt, or the baseball with his backswing, and the catcher has gloved or blocked the pitch, it is interference.[...]



Good quote as far as it went, but it didn’t go all the way and show the examples that says. HE AIN’T OUT It does point out that it is “interference” asper the J/R. Even though the J/R is in conflict with the governing agency that they WERE training candidates to enter. That being the NAPBL now known as PBUC. The conflict being PBUC saying it ain’t and the J/R saying it is. And we all know interference is gonna draw an out.

So now we got the OBR, PBUC, The JEA and The J/R saying HE AIN’T OUT. We got CC, WW and JP saying he is out. We got PBUC saying it ain’t interference and we got The J/R saying it is interference.

The plot thickens. On 3/16 at 5:53 you reaffirmed your position Carl that the batter is out in a post to JJ. This time when the catcher has “complete control”. All the time we’re taking about the back swing.

Then at 9:15 the same night after JJ answered that post stating all your scources where what he said. HE AIN’T OUT. You then challenged him to find any of your post that supported his assertion. Carl all your scores say HE AIN’T OUT. Only WW and JP agree with you that being he is out.

JJ said Harry said it ain’t nothing. I relayed that those attending the Evens Pro School were told It ain’t nothen.

Those who decided this was a democratic society and voted said IT AIN’T NOTHEN.

Carl you were wrong the batter ain’t out. I just hope Robert G realized that.

As far as you comments on the JEA. I’m sure we’ll have further discussion on the topic of the JEA and the J/R in future threads.

Rex