Catcher Interference

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
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...! :-)

JJ:

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.)