Catcher Interference

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

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.

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.

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.