Catcher Interference

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair
**snip JEA quote***

Steve
Member
EWS

Steve,

I did, in fact, read JEA looking for guidance in this situation. I found the quotes you provided to be inconclusive. Perhaps you could show me the exact language that you think supports your position, because I can't find it.

Furthermore, I found a J/R reference which was FAR more conclusive. In fact, it spelled it right out. I have quoted it in a previous post. I'll let you look for it, but it's in this thread.

We all at least know one thing right now. Some pro umpires have indeed been taught the interpretation that Carl, Warren, and myself have been discussing - at least those pro umpires who were taught at the Brinkman School.

If it's changed since then, it hasn't been published anywhere.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Warren --

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.

Generally true, Bob. No disagreement there. However, can you explain why it was necessary to include the parenthetical "(not interference)" if the corollary of THIS rule 'A' was not in fact 'Z'? Using this statement in parentheses surely indicates that "interference" was the alternative choice for the casebook exception, doesn't it?

The choice here is in being pregnant or not. Therefore "not A" really is "not B" in this case. Either this action is interference or not. The exception stated means that, absent the exception conditions, interference exists. That is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the comment.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
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...

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, IMO you have entirely missed the import of the word "encompasses" in the JEA quote. That word means "includes" but that does NOT necessarily limit the generality of the interpretation of interference to those acts ALONE in which the catcher is actually making a play! The provision "includes" ALL acts of the catcher trying to retire a runner, but it does NOT ipso facto "exclude" acts of the catcher which will NOT directly retire a runner, such as simply catching the pitched ball (fielding), or returning it to the pitcher (throwing). Both of these acts can specifically be interfered with, whether or not a play is being made on a runner in the process. The whole tenor of OBR 6.06 is that we are talking about ILLEGAL ACTION by the batter. Illegal actions under this provision are punished irrespective of whether they prevented a play on a runner.

Your repeated assertions, that those who hold opposing views to your own are somehow being duplicitous in their use of authoritative opinion, are really getting more than a little OLD for me, Steve. Can you please hum a different tune next time? In this case you have resorted to the very tactics you have previously eschewed; quoting an authority which you have formerly refused to accept in order to "win" your argument. The shame is that we keep reminding you that this is NOT a contest, although there certainly are winners and losers. The "losers" are the ones who consistently refuse to listen to the voice of experience and so fail to profit from the knowledge it conveys.

Cheers,

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
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. [snip]
Steve
Member
EWS

Steve:

First, this is the last post written by you and signed as a member of the Anti-Warren faction (EWS) to which I will respond.

Second, let me warn you once again about impugning both my honor and honesty. You write:

What I find interesting is those taking the point of view (in the situated [sic] 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 [sic] 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.

Since I am the only one who quoted the JEA in this thread, your comment is clearly directed to me. That is not by any means the first time you have accused me of mismangaging my sources. I intend for that to stop. Now.

If you wonder why I'm angry, the success of the BRD as a tool for working umpires as well as teachers, instructors, and historians, depends upon the ethos I have created amongst those who use that book. If Carl Childress does not report honestly, why should we believe anything he reports?

You certainly over-value your importance on my radar screen if you think I would jeopardize the reputation I have built over 20 years simply to score a point against some obscure umpire from North Texas.

The very reason the PBUC deals with me is that they can depend upon me to report the exact truth of their interpretation, regardless of my personal opinion. You will not again without further action from me assert or insinuate that I lie or mismanage my sources to win a debate.

Finally, to the issue at hand:

You quote extensive information from the JEA, all of which deals with batter-interference on the swing. All of that is irrelevant to the issue of the backswing.

As I reported, I quoted the only passage from JEA that deals with the backswing. Here's a precÃ*s of that material:

When the batter's backswing contacts the mitt before the catcher has secured the ball, it's weak interference: Dead ball, runners remain, strike on the batter.

Ironically, the portion I selectively (according to you) quoted supports the position about which no one disagrees.

Jim Porter reviewed your material. Most umpires with whom I correspond believe Jim is one of the leading experts on batter interference. He has worked many months on sifting through every bit of the rules language, official interpretations, and authoritative opinion available. He agrees that your quotation does accurately reflect the current interpretations about batter interference everywhere but on the backswing.

You went to all that trouble to post material about which no controversy exists. In so doing, you've possibly exposed yourself in a way you did not expect.

Because you have heretofore not quoted from the JEA, it appears you in all innocence may have acquired one of those illegal, electronic PDF copies of Jim Evans' work. I know the authorized, bound version is no longer available, and nobody I know seems willing to part with his. I offer that simply as a heads-up. If I'm wrong, there's no harm done. If I'm right, you should get rid of it: The recent increase in the value of the JEA is certain to attract Jim's attention.

[rex]

My friends tell me (both privately and publicly) to be cool. So I will chill.

I do make one request as a follow up to the post of record. Please donÂ’t call me by the name you have twice used.

I must not have made it clear. My name is Rex. There is no IE attached. I find adding the IE to my name to be quite disrespectful. It not only shows no respect for me but also for the man that carried the name before me. If it is your need to have no respect for me I can live with it. BUT NOT THE NAME. Should I choose to allow you to call me buy another modified version of Rex I will inform you in direct communication. So until that time Rex will do or if you prefer Mr. McDonald.

Should you choose not to honor this request I will understand as you have been called many a name and have had to retaliate.

Other than that How the hell are you Carl?

The term you used in your post to Steve ---PRECIS. I had to go and look it up. (DonÂ’t ya know) and I couldnÂ’t find in the definition where editorial license would be allowed. You see this weekend I am allowed the use of the famed JEA. And so far I have found no reference to WEAK or STRONGE interference. How would that have come in use when Jim Evans never said it?
I sure hope you get back on this soon, I must return the JEA


Rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
You see this weekend I am allowed the use of the famed JEA. And so far I have found no reference to WEAK or STRONGE interference. How would that have come in use when Jim Evans never said it?
I sure hope you get back on this soon, I must return the JEA. Rex

Rex:

Don't bother looking for "weak" interference in the JEA. I scanned my copy (of the original given to my umpire friend at Duke University); it's not there.

But I can explain why. The Evans Academy came late to the umpire school scene and needed some way to compete against the established schools. One way was to produce a manual such as the tome we call (named by Jim Porter) the JEA.

At that time Rick Roder and Chris Jaksa were teaching at the Joe Brinkman (soon Brinkman-Froemming) school. Their tome, which we call the J/R (named by me), does use and discuss "weak" interference. The term, I suspect, was first used in print by Nick Bremigan, and the Brinkman book existed long before Jim wrote his.

From J/R (63, '95 ed):

Interference by a batter may be judged to be "weak" interference; that is, no runner was being played upon when the batter interfered. When weak interference occurs, the ball is dead, and all runners must return to their TOP base.

There's very little to discuss: It describes a batter "interference" that does not normally result in an out. It is of two types:

1. hinder with the backswing
2. hinder the return toss

"Weak" interference also applies to a runner. From J/R (70, '95 ed):

A runner who interferes is declared out unless, as a result of preceding action, he is already out, then the other runner being played against is declared out. If no other runner is being played against, "weak" interference applies; that is, the ball is dead and runners must remain at their last legally touched base.

I hope this helps.

Oh, I should point out that if I were competing with Brinkman, I wouldn't use terms from their book either -- if I could help it.

Finally, you'll note that I always exercise editorial license when I quote authoritative sources, even when I quote myself. Because, Mr. McDonald, you should realize that unlike some on this Board, I only quote relevant material.

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


Â…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, strike 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)Â…

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 stipulates it is not interference if it occurs before he catches the ballÂ…

It is pretty hard to nap with this thread. People are charged with calling into question gender preference, heredity and who knows what else. But the sheer number of posts caused me to go back and read through each of them even the ones that were just slightly off the topic. I wonder how many umps who seem to be willing to let the interference go do so either because a conscious or sub-conscious belief that in some way the catcher is somewhat at fault for being too close to the batter rather than the batter being completely out of control in causing the bat to contact the catcher. In thus permitting the contact to go unpunished so to speak have they not in fact judged the catcher not to have had “complete control” of the pitched ball? Obviously Jim Porter’s “what if” forces the umpire to rule interference just as if the R1 and R2 advancing would cause the umpire to either rule interference or simply call “Time”.

Finally, in order for me to better understand this potential play I ask what “preventive umpiring” if any would one recommend. I would think at the higher level of ball we would rarely instruct catchers not to get too close to the batter excepting the occasional shortstop brought in to catch. Jim Simms/NYC

[BJ Moose]

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Originally posted by rexIE
Please donÂ’t call me by the name you have twice used.

I must not have made it clear. My name is Rex. There is no IE attached. I find adding the IE to my name to be quite disrespectful. So until that time Rex will do or if you prefer Mr. McDonald.

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

First, this is the last post written by you and signed as a member of the Anti-Warren faction (EWS)

Point of order: Although the [person mentioned by you above] was the catalyst for creation of the EWS, the EWS is NOT an anti-anyone.. or anything.


It's not a gang, it's a club!" Gilda Radnor

Mike B
Founder
EWS

[Ump20]

Originally posted by BJ Moose

Point of order: Although the [person mentioned by you above] was the catalyst for creation of the EWS, the EWS is NOT an anti-anyone.. or anything.


It's not a gang, it's a club!" Gilda Radnor

Mike B
Founder
EWS

I think that leaving off Carl's ..to which I will respond could be a significant abridgement. It is clear to me that EWS is a rhetorical response based in part to the perceived position that some umpires write as if they consider themselves superior to others. If your intention was to poke fun at Warren and Carl you appear to have succeeded. If I had a dollar for every time I have seen an umpire profess to "never again" post to a particular board or site I could quickly begin to reclaim my stock losses of the last week.

I may be wrong but I do think that the EWS has by now worn pretty thin but this is a free country so you can continue to use this moniker if you like. But I wonder if in a room full of people there is only one person laughing if there is anything funny. Jim

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
Finally, in order for me to better understand this potential play I ask what “preventive umpiring” if any would one recommend. I would think at the higher level of ball we would rarely instruct catchers not to get too close to the batter excepting the occasional shortstop brought in to catch. Jim Simms/NYC

I don't believe the catcher's closeness to the plate is the only issue here, Jim. It is possible, because I have seen it done, for a the backswing to actually hit the catcher in the back, even though the catcher had not encroached on the plate. It depends as much on where the batter stands in the batter's box as on how close the catcher is to the plate.

At the levels I call, it would normally be regarded as more than a little strange for the umpire to suggest the catcher modify his position. I have only ever resorted to this once, with a relatively inexperienced catcher, and my advice to him was to move FORWARD in the catcher's box, not back. He was so far back it was difficult for me to call the strike at the knees because it was in the dirt before he gloved the ball. Generally, the closer the catcher is to the plate the better I like it. Therefore I agree with your premise as stated above, and suggest there is no way to prevent this sort of occurrence. Mind you, it is so rare at this level that prevention hardly seems necessary.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 18th, 2001 at 09:47 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
It's not a gang, it's a club!" Gilda Radnor

Mike B
Founder
EWS

So is Aryan Nation, isn't it? Both "clubs" have an abhorance for people who speak a different yet similar language to their membership. I find neither group particularly commendable and certainly not "funny".

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the 'B' in 'Mike B' used to stand for 'Brancheau' rather than 'Branch'. Is there something in the French-Canadian heritage of that name which might be so shameful to you that you would feel the need to change it? Just curious.

Cheers,

[rex]

Carl,
I got all the facts now and all the scources.

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.

There is an exception between the J/R and the other scources. That being the J/R calls back swing contact “interference without a play” where as PBUC says “a strike only (no interference)”

Terms such as “strong” and “weak” are not included in my copy of the J/R under this section. Therefore I must assume this is your exercise in editorial license.

It is true this section of the J/R does indeed discuss a situation that batter interference would NOT result in an out. In fact as you would concur there are 8 examples. Only number 8 would the batter be declared an out as this being the third strike. One example even told of a play that the runner(s) would be allowed to advance.

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

Now then lets take this thread full circle and go all the way back to Robert GÂ’s original post with your answer.


B]

Originally posted by Robert G
I just finished a LL game 11& 12, I was Pu.
Runners on 2nd & 3rd B1 swings & miises & literally takes of f2 glove. Coach is screaming for interference so I check with my partener & he says yes there is interference, so I award B1 ist. The defense coach says he hit the glove after he swung on his follow through.Would that be interference? Also in either case if it were interference wouldn't both runners abvance.
I think the offense did not pick up on that.
As a new umpire with things happening so fast even at that level I find catcher interference A diifficult call.

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.

[/B][/QUOTE




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.

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.

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.

So now we got the OBR, PBUC, The JEA and The J/R saying HE AINÂ’T OUT. We got CC, WW and JP saying he is out. We got PBUC saying it ainÂ’t interference and we got The J/R saying it is interference.

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 AINÂ’T OUT. You then challenged him to find any of your post that supported his assertion. Carl all your scores say HE AINÂ’T OUT. Only WW and JP agree with you that being he is out.

JJ said Harry said it ainÂ’t nothing. I relayed that those attending the Evens Pro School were told It ainÂ’t nothen.

Those who decided this was a democratic society and voted said IT AINÂ’T NOTHEN.

Carl you were wrong the batter ainÂ’t out. I just hope Robert G realized that.

As far as you comments on the JEA. IÂ’m sure weÂ’ll have further discussion on the topic of the JEA and the J/R in future threads.

Rex

[Jim Porter]

All I can say is...finally. Someone who is trying to convince US of an interpretation that is in direct contradiction to the language of the OBR.

Usually, it's the other way around.

You're right about J/R, and I'm wrong. I plead stupidity.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex


Carl,
I got all the facts now and all the scources.

I gave you the J/R pages from the 95 edition documenting every word I quoted. (That's more than you did.) If you have an earlier edition, that's not my fault.

Terms such as “strong” and “weak” are not included in my copy of the J/R under this section. Therefore I must assume this is your exercise in editorial license.

You, sir, are deliberately twisting the facts to suit yourself. If you are indeed an umpire, that speaks volumes about your behavior on the field.

You are also the second poster to this Board to accuse me of manipulating my sources.

Let's get the sequence straight.

1. Jim Porter quotes the J/R.
2. You say you've never heard of "weak" interference.
3. I teach you what it is, point out its orgin, and quote from the J/R to help define it. Those are my only two quotes from J/R.
4. You say: "You [Carl Childress] wish to use the J/R as your final scource [sic] of authoritative opinion." You cannot support that with comments from any of my posts, either explict or implicit. Your assertion is simply a fabrication, then.
5. You say I editorialize because comments about "weak" interference don't exist at the point Jim Porter quoted. (Talk about an irrelevant charge!) You imply I deliberately tried to make it appear otherwise. That comment is just a lie.

You have engaged in that practice of innuendo and sleight of hand in other threads on other Boards. It is a hallmark of your "debating" style. You depend on the fact that most readers will not go back and check to see if your assertions are indeed borne out by the facts.

It is possible published official interpretation will eventually prove me wrong in this instance. If so, that does not bother me. I assure everyone that the 2002 BRD will carry a specific answer to this question.

What I know now is that the language of the OBR and the PBUC 4.11 makes it clear that interference should be called if the batter's backswing hinders the catcher after he has secured the ball. That is the only logical outcome of the rules language. Those are the only two sources I ever quoted to prove that point.

BTW: Warren misunderstood what you were saying. My "I'm impressed" was directed to the fact that you finally made your position on backswing interference plain, after tap dancing around through two previous posts. I didn't think you were claiming to be a PRO grad. I've read enough of your work to find it beyond belief that you attended the JEAPU. You simply said: "From what the big boys tell me, At the Evans school they are also taught--'there is no such thing as interference on the back swing'." Warren took that to mean you were a graduate, and I notice you didn't correct him in any of your subsequent posts.