Catcher Interference

[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.