7.07 vs. 6.08c

[Jim Porter]

Blaine,

There are two schools of thought with this situation among the authorities.

1. 7.07 was left in the book in error, and should be stricken from the text of the OBR.

When the rulesmakers adopted the newer 7.04(d) and 6.08(c), they neglected to remove 7.07. Since 7.04(d) and 6.08(c) cover what happens when a runner is stealing and there is catcher interference, 7.07 is overkill, it should not be a balk, and it is in the book in error.

Papa C. falls into this camp, along with several other famous names.

2. 7.07 was left in the book to add a harsher penalty for when fielders interfere with the batter during a suicide squeeze play. This harsher penalty is a balk, and all runners advance one base regardless of whether or not they were stealing at the time of the interference.

Jim Evans falls into this camp, along with several other names as well.

______________________________

Onto my opinion:

This is quite rare. It would be bizarre indeed to see a squeeze play take place, and see R1 or R2 stay put. I think we can all rest assured that we won't have to actually make an on-field decision about this controversy.

With great respect toward Papa C., I do not doubt that 7.07 was left in the book in error. As a matter of fact, Jim Evans does not contradict this idea. However, as long as amateur coaches can read, and as long as they're still getting copies of the rulebook, I can hardly ignore 7.07.

I would love to have the luxury of striking 7.07 from the book. I actually believe that it should be stricken from the book. The problem is, I would be all alone in my local area with this ruling. No one else knows it, and it would be hard to convince a local amateur protest committee of my beliefs.

I'll be calling a balk if this 7.07 situation ever happens. Sorry, Papa C.!