|
Fri Mar 16, 2001, 05:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Mar 16, 2001, 05:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Am I missing something here? It sure looks like Carl agrees with me - that it's NOT interference and no base awards are made on the scenario outlined, and the batter's not out unless it's strike three. That's my position, and has been from the start. Sure LOOKS like it's Carl's as well. HA! I win! Or you do. I know it's one of the two...
NOW, on to the next play...! :-)
|
|
Fri Mar 16, 2001, 08:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You are misstating my position -- and you damn well know it. But, just in case someone is napping: NCAA and OBR: The batter's bat on the backswing contacts the catcher's glove: 1. before he has complete control of the pitch: weak interference, dead ball, stike on the batter, runners remain, batter is not out unless it's strike three. 2. after he has complete control of the pitch: interference, dead ball, batter is out, runners remain. There is no provision for "weak" interference on a batter's backswing in FED: The batter must control his backswing. (FED 7.3.5 Situation C) If that's your position, then I'm happy for you. Please don't deliberately misrepresent mine. Jim's point is known in debate as reductio ad absurdem. He says, in effect, If you don't call interference after the catcher has fielded the pitch, then when the ball goes dead as a result of the batter's backswing, one must award bases, as a matter of rule. After all, the language of the books clearly stiupulates it is not interference if it occurs before he catches the ball. That seems to have been obvious to everyone but you. (I still didn't get your credentials so I can check with Harry.)
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry, Carl, but I didn't "damn well know it". I am also not "deliberately misrepresenting" your position. If I wanted to deliberately anger you I'd call you a name and be done with it. I really don't believe that if a batter's backswing hits the catcher's mitt and knocks the ball out of it I should call him out. Period. Don't assume I'm just looking for a fight because I'm not. I'm also not going to apologize, because all I did was state my position, support it with printed backup, and post it. And you really shouldn't be asking Harry about "JJ" without knowing who "JJ" is. Harry might think you're asking silly questions. You may be well versed in baseball rules, but diiplomacy isn't your strong suit.
Done.
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
JJ:
It's irrelvant to me whether you're done. That easy to say when the issue is in dispute. You wrote the following: "Am I missing something here? It sure looks like Carl agrees with me - that it's NOT interference and no base awards are made on the scenario outlined, and the batter's not out unless it's strike three." I challenge you to quote any statement in context from any of my posts to support that assertion. That disengenuous comment is what angered me, not that you disagreed. I'll debate the issues until a Democrat wins the White House. But my opponent must represent my position fairly. I'm sure the facts show you did not in this instance.
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry, Carl, I beg to differ. The statement you quoted verbatum was NAPBL 4.11 - the same statement I used to support my position. That statement said "no interference", and that's why I said it appeared we were on the same side. Your more recent post clarified that we are not on the same side. Obviously I DID miss something. I just didn't feel like I should have been jumped on for it.
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
/QUOTE]Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed. [/B][/QUOTE Sir, Now you have escalated your venomous nature by stating publicly that I have declared homosexuality. A statement like that can not defended or condoned. I truly believe you have lost it. Brad if you are reading any of this I think its time you did something. And I dont mean just erasing the garbage. Its time you did something about the author. rex
__________________
When you're green you'll grow When you're ripe you'll rot
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Concerning the backswing: Evans has no comment and only one relevant play, which supports both our positions on weak interference:
Here's a play where the batter's backswing hinders the catcher "before [my emphasis] he can secure the ball." You and I (and everyone else) agree, for the ruling is directly in accord with OBR 6.06(c) CMT. How hard would it have been for Jim to: 1. leave out "before he can secure the ball." In that case, any hindrance by the backswing would automatically be weak and JJ would be right. OR... 2. add a play in which the backswing hindered the catcher after he secured the ball. Evans could then say.... A significant difference is that the runner in Evans is moving. One might infer that in a similar play, with the backswing contact occurring after the catcher had the ball, that Jim would call interference after all. Barring that, the only authoritative source that is also specific to the play in question is the comment from Jaksa and Roder, who take the same position I do. But it's clear we'll A2D on this point.
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 12:47am
|
|||
|
|||
Canned Heat...
"What we have heyah is a failyer to communicate!" [Strother Martin - Cool Hand Luke]
Look, it is clear the debate on this issue is heating up. Perhaps I can restate things in a way that helps it to cool down a tad. 1. The PBUC/NAPBL 4.11 citation is on point but mostly repeats the language of the casebook comment following OBR 6.06(c), as Carl's post shows. 2. Both the OBR casebook comment AND the PBUC/NAPBL 4.11 reference deal with UNINTENTIONAL contact on the backswing BEFORE the pitch is securely held. We all AGREE that is NOT interference but simply a dead ball and runners return. It is in fact an EXCEPTION to the rule. 3. However, the logical corollary of the ruling in 2 above is that if the contact was INTENTIONAL and/or occurred AFTER the ball was securely held THEN you have INTERFERENCE and the batter is out for illegal action. It would NOT be necessary to state an EXCEPTION to the rule if the alternative case was NOT interference anyway, would it? Please think carefully about the logic of that. 4. As Jim Porter points out, interference here is not clearly and unequivocally stated but is instead only inferred from the language of the rule and the interpretation. However, authoritative support for that inference comes from Jaksa/Roder as quoted by Jim Porter. 5. The argument that the runners must be stealing for this contact to be interference is not supported by the rule and, as Jim Porter's reductio in absurdum play shows, stealing runners are NOT a requirement for interference to apply in this circumstance. It is not the catcher's play alone that is being interfered with; it is his fielding or throwing too. Catching a pitch IS fielding the pitched ball. Now of course we are certainly entitled to disagree on this issue, especially when there isn't any truly definitive "official" interpretation upon which to rely. There are many cases in the rules where what is determined by tradition and common practice is not supported by the rules themselves. In this case, however, we have a rule that offers us its own explanation by the application of logic. If one set of circumstances produces 'A' then the alternative set of circumstances must logically produce the opposite of 'A' - namely 'Z'. We also have the authoritative opinion of Jaksa/Roder that using that logic provides an inference that is shared with these instructors from the Brinkman School. It can be exasperating when every attempt to correct wrong thinking is viewed as condescension. Heck, even the Pope is entitled to be wrong but who could ever condescend to His Emminence? Carl Childress has earned, by his experience and level of expertise, the right to say "Rex, you are wrong" without being accused of condescension. Just because he says "Rex, you are wrong", or "Steve, you are wrong", doesn't necessarily mean he is equating those two with "the great unwashed" (sic). That is fallacious logic on several counts. Besides, some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of modern times would qualify as "the great unwashed". Maybe those guys are simply followers of Ghandi? (grin) Please, please read the relevant message and value it on the merits of its content, rather than rejecting it simply because you can't handle the perceived writing style of its author, or you are still smarting from some prior unpleasant encounter. Cheers,
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 01:00am
|
|||
|
|||
Another wrong conclusion jumped to....
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex
Quote:
Quote:
I honestly believe that you have inferred that which was not implied here. I took Carl's reference to your coming "out of the closet" as a gentle jibe at your apparent admission that you have attended the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring. It has long been held that many amateur umpires only espouse certain specific views because they were trained to those views at a Pro school. The inference is that while Pro school training is excellent for Pro umpires, it is not always entirely applicable or relevant for umpires in amateur leagues. Some amateur officials evidently prefer to conceal their Pro school training for that reason. I believe Carl was congratulating you on your apparent admission that you were Pro trained. The fact he may have misread what you wrote, in that you were actually referring to the top dogs of your association being Pro trained, is a simple mistake. I see no intended offense in what he wrote. Cheers, [Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 17th, 2001 at 12:12 AM]
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 03:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, I'm speechless, I really am. I like you, Rex. I hate to see you get all upset. I hope you reconsider Carl's meaning. I don't think it's what you thought at all. I think it was a generation gap rearing its ugly head.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 09:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
JEA states under 6.06(c):
6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when he interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. Furthermore, in discussing 6.06(c) JEA continues: Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases.Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases. The batter is called out and the runner/s are returned in all cases with one exception: If a runner on third is attempting to score with less than two outs when the batter interferes, the offensive team is given the more severe penalty ruling the runner out instead of the batter. With two outs, the other penalty retiring the batter is enforced and, of course, no run is allowed. Thisis considered a more severe penalty with two outs since the batter is deprived of finishing his at-bat the next inning. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled. This JEA quote would support that batter interference occurs only when a catcher made or attempted to make a play. What I find interesting is those taking the point of view (in the situated original shown) that the batter should be called out for batter interference went to JEA for reference, used other data from JEA, but failed to highlight this data. Could it be that this obvious part of JEA was merely overlooked? It appears to me that it may be more important to some to show only that which is important to winning a debate versus that which may be of pertinence to the discussion. I do not take JEA or J/R as gospel, however, I have been ridiculed by some for wishing to "dismiss" it. I do not intend to imply that JEA is right or wrong here. I will add, however, that in this situation JEA concurs with every teaching ever provided to me. That is, for batter intereference to occur, there must be a play or attempted play by the catcher. I realize many at eUmpire disagree with me and the listed authoritative opinion. Steve Member EWS
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2001, 10:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canned Heat...
Quote:
If A, then B does not mean If not A then not B. IOW, If BEFORE then NOTHING does not imply If AFTER, then SOMETHING. Rex -- Relax -- that's not what Carl meant. Jim -- On your play (base runners not moving, backswing hits catchers mitt, ball goes out of play -- correct me if that's wrong), I have a dead ball, a strike (for swinging at the pitch) and no runners advance. If runners are moving, or the catcher is throwing behind a runner, or there's intent, ... then I have a different ruling. All -- I think we're at the point where most of us will just begin repeating ideas / opinions / quotes. I doubt any of us will be swayed by the other side. I'd suggest (and I know -- no one made me king of this thread) that the discussion (not just this thread, but in general) has been rather civil lately and continuing this one could turn that around. I'd hate to see that happen.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
