[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Quote:
|
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.
|
I take full responsibility for the Jaksa/Roder blunder. J/R does not support your position, Warren. It does contradict it. I screwed up, everyone. I'm sorry.
There are specific case plays in J/R which support the notion of so-called, "weak interference," even in the case of a pitch which has been gloved or blocked first.
Here's one:
Quote:
PLAY: R1, not stealing, There is a swing and miss, and the pitch is gloved, but the backswing contacts the catcher's mitt, and the ball is knocked away.
RULING: weak interference, The ball is dead, R1 must remain at first.
|
It is possible that the PBUC Manual has omitted the secured/not secured distinction on purpose, to effectively give all unintentional back-swing interference the so-called, "weak interference," remedy.
But without a specific case play outside of J/R, it certainly looks like more confusing and conflicting information. Perhaps it is possible that the professional interpretation has been controversial, and some authors expected the interpretation to change. So, they just left it all up in the air.
|
Jim:
You have nailed the issue quite properly. As I said in my final post to McDonald, I based all my argument on the language of the rules and a review of 4.11. Since the J/R is not official interpretation, I did not consult them and took your word for it when I mentioned they supported my position.
There's no harm done. I still see the language of the OBR as specifically indicating the opposite ruling of the play you quote from J/R. But after I looked into the J/R on this issue, I also acknowledged freely in my post to McDonald that I might be "proved" wrong. The language of the OBR has been changed enough times by official interpretation to break me from sole dependence on its outdated and outmoded language.
Of course, everyone agrees that if the batter
intentionally contacts the catcher with his backswing, that is
a priori interference, and B1 is out unless the catcher is able to throw and that throw retires a runner.
I will submit this question to Mike Fitzpatrick, director of the PBUC, at an appropriate time. NOW is not that time as they are gearing up for another season. My usual questions to Mike reach him sometime after the World Series. Last year, he waited for the winter staff meeting in Dallas before replying to the remaining 20 of my 40 questions.
I will report to this Board "my final answer" sometime around Christmas. Nine months is not a long time to wait unless you are a pregnant woman.