[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
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.

All sources agree, we agree, on the subject of UNINTENTIONAL backswing interference BEFORE the ball is securely held by the catcher. That was NEVER in dispute by anyone except perhaps BFair (Steve Freix) who seems to dispute everything Carl says one way or the other.

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

Oh dear. Carl AND I agree that there "AIN'T NO OUT" when the backswing interference is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball. To suggest that Carl or I have said otherwise is simply false. Hopefully we will eventually get to the REAL issue sometime soon in this post. Were you trying for my record for the longest post on any subject? (grin)

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.

Here is perhaps the only point of contention. What we have here, as described in Carl's answer is ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) by extension. The casebook comment says that if the interference is UNINTENTIONAL (this apparently is) and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball it would NOT be an OUT for ILLEGAL ACTION. However, Carl's first point clearly states "If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp.." That means that one of the two terms of the Exception in the Casebook Comment to OBR 6.06(c) would NOT apply, and therefore this action certainly WOULD be INTERFERENCE and the batter would quite properly be OUT! This has been the whole crux of the argument, as summed up in the two following points:

1. Backswing contact is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the ball is securely held - "(not inteference)" by the casebook comment.

2. Backswing contact is INTENTIONAL (not evident in this case) OR it occurs AFTER the catcher has securely held the ball - that's INTERFERENCE and ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the batter is OUT!

Why is this not specifically mentioned in PBUC or JEA? Because it is already in the rule itself for all to see!

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.

Read OBR 6.06(c) Casebook Comment on the backswing interference. You will find the words "If ... before the catcher has securely held the ball ... (not interference)..." {my bold, underline and italics} The clear logic and inference of this passage is IF the conditions it outlines do NOT exist then INTERFERENCE is the only proper conclusion. It is a statement of EXCEPTION to the conclusion of interference. That's why it mentions that by saying "it shall be called a strike only (not interference).." If this was NOT intended as an Exception provision, it wouldn't be necessary to mention this case at all, especially including using the words "(not interference)"!

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.

This is simply WRONG. I quote the words of the OBR 6.06(c) Casebook Comment:

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard to carry the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgement, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball..." {my underline}

Surely this CLEARLY says that whether or not the catcher has "securely held the ball" is a pivotal issue in deciding this case!

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.

This is the problem with the J/R concept of "weak interference". It is intended to describe "interference" (dictionary definition) which does not meet the criteria for "interference" (OBR definition) as set out in OBR 2.00, and otherwise called by J/R "strong interference". In short, it's confusing to everyone, despite it's laudible aim to remove confusion.

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.

This is a gross misstatement of the situation, Rex. Let me put it another way that might make it perfectly clear why I say that:

1. If backswing contact is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the ball is securely held - "(not inteference)" by the casebook comment.

OBR, JEA, J/R, PBUC, CC, WW, JP and apparently you and JJ too, all say HE AIN'T OUT!

- However -

2. If backswing contact is INTENTIONAL (not evident in Robert's example) OR it occurs AFTER the catcher has securely held the ball - that's INTERFERENCE and ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the batter is OUT!

OBR, CC, WW, JP (maybe) and J/R (maybe) say HE IS OUT for illegal action under OBR 6.06(c)Comment! JEA and PBUC say "NOTHEN" different. Apparently you and others would disagree. I would suggest you cannot produce a casebook play from either source that directly supports the alternative contention.

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

Rex, all of this is both ACCURATE and ENTIRELY WORTHLESS to the debate! "IT AIN'T NOTHEN" certainly applies to backswing interference which is both UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball. What you conveyed to others and how you choose to represent the answers you obtained says "NOTHEN" about whether you posed the proper questions! Please look at this whole issue AGAIN in the light of the possibility (more like "fact", I'd say) that there are TWO types of contact on the backswing, one of which will be "NOTHEN" except a dead ball strike and the other of which will see the batter called "OUT" for interference! If we have failed to communicate that fact before this point in this thread, I would suggest that is not entirely our problem. It has certainly been stated more than once.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 19th, 2001 at 12:36 AM]