Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
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.
|
Ok, Jim, but like Carl I wasn't relying on the J/R for support. I still maintain the language of the rule and casebook comment is sufficient. The above play doesn't prove or disprove the issue for me because it doesn't imply whether the ball was securely held, only gloved, before being knocked free. It may also be that the PBUC Manual omits the secured/not secured distinction because it needs no clarification, being crystal clear from the rule comment.
I will await the PBUC interpretation with interest, come Christmas. The last two times I have made an interpretation that subsequently was officially ruled upon by them, they ruled quite differently in some very important and material particular. It won't surprise me if they go that way again this time. We'll see. The difference usually goes to the PBUC's professional motives in having their calls intelligible to the fans in the bleachers. OTOH, all I take into consideration is the original intent and the rule language. The divide that creates can sometimes approximate the Grand Canyon as far as rule interpretation goes. (grin)
Cheers,