Catcher Interference

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
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.

All sources agree, we agree, on the subject of UNINTENTIONAL backswing interference BEFORE the ball is securely held by the catcher. That was NEVER in dispute by anyone except perhaps BFair (Steve Freix) who seems to dispute everything Carl says one way or the other.

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

Oh dear. Carl AND I agree that there "AIN'T NO OUT" when the backswing interference is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball. To suggest that Carl or I have said otherwise is simply false. Hopefully we will eventually get to the REAL issue sometime soon in this post. Were you trying for my record for the longest post on any subject? (grin)

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.

Here is perhaps the only point of contention. What we have here, as described in Carl's answer is ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) by extension. The casebook comment says that if the interference is UNINTENTIONAL (this apparently is) and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball it would NOT be an OUT for ILLEGAL ACTION. However, Carl's first point clearly states "If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp.." That means that one of the two terms of the Exception in the Casebook Comment to OBR 6.06(c) would NOT apply, and therefore this action certainly WOULD be INTERFERENCE and the batter would quite properly be OUT! This has been the whole crux of the argument, as summed up in the two following points:

1. Backswing contact is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the ball is securely held - "(not inteference)" by the casebook comment.

2. Backswing contact is INTENTIONAL (not evident in this case) OR it occurs AFTER the catcher has securely held the ball - that's INTERFERENCE and ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the batter is OUT!

Why is this not specifically mentioned in PBUC or JEA? Because it is already in the rule itself for all to see!

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.

Read OBR 6.06(c) Casebook Comment on the backswing interference. You will find the words "If ... before the catcher has securely held the ball ... (not interference)..." {my bold, underline and italics} The clear logic and inference of this passage is IF the conditions it outlines do NOT exist then INTERFERENCE is the only proper conclusion. It is a statement of EXCEPTION to the conclusion of interference. That's why it mentions that by saying "it shall be called a strike only (not interference).." If this was NOT intended as an Exception provision, it wouldn't be necessary to mention this case at all, especially including using the words "(not interference)"!

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.

This is simply WRONG. I quote the words of the OBR 6.06(c) Casebook Comment:

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard to carry the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgement, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball..." {my underline}

Surely this CLEARLY says that whether or not the catcher has "securely held the ball" is a pivotal issue in deciding this case!

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.

This is the problem with the J/R concept of "weak interference". It is intended to describe "interference" (dictionary definition) which does not meet the criteria for "interference" (OBR definition) as set out in OBR 2.00, and otherwise called by J/R "strong interference". In short, it's confusing to everyone, despite it's laudible aim to remove confusion.

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

This is a gross misstatement of the situation, Rex. Let me put it another way that might make it perfectly clear why I say that:

1. If backswing contact is UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the ball is securely held - "(not inteference)" by the casebook comment.

OBR, JEA, J/R, PBUC, CC, WW, JP and apparently you and JJ too, all say HE AIN'T OUT!

- However -

2. If backswing contact is INTENTIONAL (not evident in Robert's example) OR it occurs AFTER the catcher has securely held the ball - that's INTERFERENCE and ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the batter is OUT!

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. Apparently you and others would disagree. I would suggest you cannot produce a casebook play from either source that directly supports the alternative contention.

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

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

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

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

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

Rex

Rex, all of this is both ACCURATE and ENTIRELY WORTHLESS to the debate! "IT AIN'T NOTHEN" certainly applies to backswing interference which is both UNINTENTIONAL and occurs BEFORE the catcher has securely held the ball. What you conveyed to others and how you choose to represent the answers you obtained says "NOTHEN" about whether you posed the proper questions! Please look at this whole issue AGAIN in the light of the possibility (more like "fact", I'd say) that there are TWO types of contact on the backswing, one of which will be "NOTHEN" except a dead ball strike and the other of which will see the batter called "OUT" for interference! If we have failed to communicate that fact before this point in this thread, I would suggest that is not entirely our problem. It has certainly been stated more than once.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 19th, 2001 at 12:36 AM]

[Whowefoolin]

Everyone just shut up already!! My god, the power struggle on this board is unbelievable. I can not imagine making one call in one inning of one game with any of you. I would probably have an NAPBL/Jaska/OBR/FED/LL/Pony book in my face so fast between innings proving why/why not I am so wrong and you all are so right. Carl would come out of the stands advertising his "new" book and justifying why it, and he, are so important and correct. I believe I would soon see Jim and a whole bunch of other cronies coming from the parking lot, wearing their bright colored Eumpire shirts, hot-footing it to the field because they heard a call that went the other way, but not "their way" and need to put their "two cents".

I am going back to Mcgriffs and URC to rid my mind of you all.

BTW, Carl I still hold your replies valuable, but the way you come about sometimes just rubs wrong a lot!

Max

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Whowefoolin
I believe I would soon see Jim and a whole bunch of other cronies coming from the parking lot, wearing their bright colored Eumpire shirts, hot-footing it to the field because they heard a call that went the other way, but not "their way" and need to put their "two cents".

Max

Max,

This is a discussion board for baseball umpires. So far, I have kept to discussing baseball rules. That's why we're all here - to discuss all aspects of baseball officiating. I don't know what else you saw in my posts, but it is purely imaginary.

I am sorry that you find my posts somehow distasteful. Since they contained nothing but a discussion of baseball rules, I can't help but wonder what else you expected to see. I would be glad to try to improve my discussion style if you gave me suggestions and feedback.

In the future, however, if you ever do return to posting on this board, please kindly refrain from attacking me. I don't deserve your venom. I have done nothing wrong. I have done nothing to you.

If you don't come back, bon voyage.

[Jim Porter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

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:

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.

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Originally posted by Warren Willson

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:

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.

[JJ]

Nine months isn't a long time to wait unless I have this call next week!

Thanks for the effort of further investigation -

[Warren Willson]

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:

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,

[umpyre007]

Well now...it's been two days since the last post in this thread. I'm assuming that all involved required medical treatment for broken arms. You know, from attempting to pat one's self on one's own back.

The silence you now hear is the sound of one hand clapping in congradulatory adoration of all the fine bandwidth wasted on such a trivial pursuit. Go umpire a game.

[JJ]

You cut me to the quick, sir! I cannot believe you haven't enjoyed the spirited, albeit lengthy, discussion about a topical subject that in reality resolved nothing. As of this date the final answer is the only thing on my Christmas list!

[Thane Yennie]

Might make a heck of a good question for "Who wants to be a millionaire"

[bluezebra]

It's JED as in CLAMPETT. It's BRENNAN as in Walter.

Now back to the situation. By some wild chance, did the catcher REACH for the pitch, or just WAIT for it? Makes a BIG difference. I had a LL game where the C REACHED and got his hand broken for the effort.

Bob

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by umpyre007
Well now...it's been two days since the last post in this thread. I'm assuming that all involved required medical treatment for broken arms. You know, from attempting to pat one's self on one's own back.

The silence you now hear is the sound of one hand clapping in congradulatory adoration of all the fine bandwidth wasted on such a trivial pursuit. Go umpire a game.

You are typical of one group that posts on the 'Net: You're afraid to post under your own name; you rarely add any insight into the issues; and you fancy you are witty and clever with your "lightning-like" sorties into the fray. You put me in mind of an umpire who used to post on McGriff's until someone blew his cover.

In your post you have belittled the following (mostly senior) members of this Board, all of whom spent time and effort to explain their opinions: Carl Childress, Tim C{hristensen), Steve Freix, Bob Jenkins, Rex (McDonald), Jim Porter, Jim Simms, Warren Willson, and one anon, JJ.

I'll await breathlessly your next anonymous non-contribution to the knowledge base at this site.

Go read a book.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B
In your post you have belittled the following (mostly senior) members of this Board, all of whom spent time and effort to explain their opinions: Carl Childress, Tim C{hristensen), Steve Freix, Bob Jenkins, Rex (McDonald), Jim Porter, Jim Simms, Warren Willson, and one anon, JJ.

[/B]

JJ is no more anon than Tim C or Rex.

In many of his posts (at least the early ones), he signed his full name and listed a website.

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

You put me in mind of an umpire who used to post on McGriff's until someone blew his cover.

Oh...that guy Eric Redfern?

Look aound sir and you will see that a lot of good folks that are NOT anon also think the same thing: the air is hot and it smells way bad dude.

[rex]

Hay Dudes be cool. We shoot ourselves in the footes by accident most times. Lets not start something up just to do it on purpose.


rex