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):<p>If this indeed happened on the backswing, it cannot be "catcher interference."<ol><li>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.</li><li>Unless runners are moving on the pitch or are forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, they do not advance.</ol></li>

I am unfamiliar with specifics of LL rule and how they differ from OBR, however, under OBR I do not believe you have batter interference unless the actions of the batter interfered with F2 in making a play or preventing a play.

Under OBR, I would not call this batter out in the scenerio you presented. I would likely ask all to be more careful in attempts to prevent injury.

Just my opinion,

Steve

Steve: An interesting position, to say the least.<p>Batters walk on four balls. Batters should strike out on four strikes.</p>Just <b>my</b> opinion.

Carl, I was saying:

---I don't know LL rules (if they differ from OBR in this point)
---OBR (summarized) says batter interference requires batter to interfere with a catcher's effort to make a play
---I didn't see a catcher's effort to make a play here
---I would not call batter interference in the listed scenerio. I had nothing----regardless of what the coach wanted. I would speak to both players in the interest of safety and to let them know I was aware of the occurrence.


I don't understand your post. Is mine in error?
Please explain.

Steve

Yes, yours is in error. Read OBR 6.06(c) and the attendant casebook comment. A batter making contact with the catcher on the "backswing" after striking at a pitch is interference, unless certain conditions apply in which case it is a dead ball strike. Carl was right. You were wrong. No opinion involved. Just the rules.

Cheers,

Warren

Robert,

Don't let the Clampitts(?) and the McCoys get you all twisted up. Read 6.06(c) mostly the last paragraph before 6.06(d). You saw the play, so with the reading of the COMPLETE rule you'll be able to get the answer you want.


rex

Yes, but Mr. McDonald, wouldn't it be more helpful if you told us how <b>you</b> would call that play?

BTW: It was the <b>Hatfields</b> and the McCoys.

Rex,

Carl gave a more complete answer. I'm sure he did this knowing that Robert was talking about LL (11/12 yrs), and that the LL rule book does NOT include most of the casebook comments that we find in the standard OBR. The paragraph you referenced is a casebook comment. So, your admonition to read the last paragraph before OBR 6.06(d) might actually produce a different result depending on which copy of the rules Robert reads.

BTW, I don't see any Clampett/McCoy or even Hatfield/McCoy type fued in this thread. My response to Bfair (aka Steve Freix) was deliberately brief and to the point, because Steve has a tendency to pounce on every little phrase looking for arguments. In that sense you could say my curt post was an attempt to AVOID the Hatfield/McCoy outcome in this thread. Then along comes Rex to call a Hatfield a Clampett and .... (grin)

Cheers,

Warren

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

Rex, Carl gave a more complete answer. I'm sure he did this knowing that Robert was talking about LL (11/12 yrs), and that the LL rule book does NOT include most of the casebook comments that we find in the standard OBR. The paragraph you referenced is a casebook comment. So, your admonition to read the last paragraph before OBR 6.06(d) might actually produce a different result depending on which copy of the rules Robert reads. Cheers, Warren

Just for the record, the Little League Rulebook doesn't include the casebook comments under 6.06(c), and it also doesn't have a 6.06(d) whatsoever.

6.06c states: <i> <b>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. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.</i></b>

Warren, I don't see in the example starting this thread how the batter hindered the catcher's play. The catcher was not attempting any play, and no runners advanced. Batter hits glove on follow through. This is not interference.

Quoted 6.06c attendant casebook comment: <b><i>
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, <u>it shall be called a strike only (not interference)</u>. The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.</b></i>

Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why?


Steve Hatfield

See? I told you so.... *sigh*
 

Mr Hatfield ... er... Freix,

The batter hit the catcher with the bat while he was in the act of fielding the pitched ball. The protection offered a fielder in the <i>"act of fielding"</i> includes not only protection until he gains secure possession of the ball but also protection while he makes any throw immediately following the gaining of that possession.

So, in the case in point the catcher was interfered with because the batter hit him with the bat. If he does that "unintentionally" and BEFORE the catcher has secure possession of the ball, in that specific case it is a dead ball strike only. However, allowing those conditions means that you also accept the corollary i.e. if the hit was "intentional" OR was made AFTER the catcher gained secure possession of the ball, then it is batter's INTERFERENCE by extension.

The casebook comment articulates an EXCEPTION to what would normally be adjudged as an act of interference.

I don't know how you view the fact that a batter hit the catcher with the bat, but on <i>my</i> diamond that's always going to be <i>something</i>! There is an argument that says that if the runners weren't stealing then there was no play to interfere with. Certainly the original scenario doesn't involve runners stealing. However, OBR 6.06(c) involves interference with the catchers FIELDING and THROWING that is classified as <b>ILLEGAL ACTION</b>. It doesn't particularly specify interference with a catcher's throw to retire a stealing runner.

I have to say that hitting the catcher with the bat MUST be considered interfering with either his FIELDING or THROWING, <i>unless</i> there was no intent and it occurs before the catcher has secure possession of the ball in which case the exception applies. It is an <b>ILLEGAL ACTION</b> under OBR 6.06(c) and the penalty for that is that the batter is OUT!

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 15th, 2001 at 11:04 PM]

I don't suppose I'll ever understand why you immediately dismiss any "ruling" I make. If I were in your chapter, I assure you we would never do a game together. I've accused you and your EWS cohorts of an agenda. You've denied that. But if that is true, and you simply disagree because you disagree, then we have an inexplicable situation.

Thousands of umpires for decades have trusted my opinions on the rules of baseball, at whatever level. I get an average of 15 requests every day for rulings; they come from all over the world. (Just today, I solved a problem for Giovanni from Italy. I didn't even know they <b>played</b> baseball in Italy. Only now does it occur to me I should have sent you his email address, and you could have disagreed with my answer -- without even knowing the question.) Even in this Internet age, I still get phone requests from as far aways as Japan. And yesterday, calls from Tampa and New Orleans.

As I am wont to say, when it's Steve and EWS against the world, bet the world.

I'm going to walk through this just as if you were a 16-year-old candidate umpire applying to join the staff of one of my Pony Leagues.

1. It is an axiom of baseball that once the pitch passes the plate, the batter no longer has the right to swing at it.

2. That being so, at that point the catcher cannot interfere with the batter.

3. Batter interference is of two kinds: strong and weak.

4. If the catcher has complete control of the pitch and the backswing smashes into the catcher's glove, that is "strong" interference <b>if there are baserunners</b> (as there are in the inciting play of this thread). If it were not so, batters could always attempt to knock the ball out of the catcher's glove, in the mistaken opinion that would permit a runner to advance.<ul><i>Note: Since no batter would be called out in a game where Steve Freix was the UIC, I suggest that might lead to dangerous play. (A second kind of weak interference occurs when the batter accidentally interferes with the catcher's return toss.)</i></ul>But....

5. "If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing <b>before the catcher has securely held the ball</b> [my emphasis], it shall be called a strike only (not interference)."<ul><i>Note: I thought here the OBR language would serve as well as any I might compose on my own.</ul></i>6. To summarize:<ol type=a><li>Contact <b>before</b> the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "weak" interference, strike only, batter is not out, unless it was the third strike;</li><li>Contact <b>after</b> the catcher has the ball: dead ball, "strong" interference, batter is out, runners remain.</ol></li>

How I would rule you ask. ThatÂ’s unimportant. For I am the untutored and uninformed that you have so often mentioned. In this situation weÂ’re not playing stump the ump.

Robert wanted the answer to a question. I believe my answer to his question was the best as I gave the rule and it tells how the person who saw the play should call it. (By the rule). I gave no WHAT IFS or examples of others plays that are totally unrelated. I didnÂ’t give a portion of the rule or speak in a parable to empress anyone with my literary prowess. I gave the correct ruling to the person that saw the play and the only person that is capable of giving the correct call.


I was speaking of the Clamitts(?) as in Jeb and the McCoys as in Walter Brennon(?).

Cobber
I just read your most recent post. I got to disagree. How can you say the catcher has full control of a pitched ball in the amount of time it took that bat to travel just short of 360 degrees. Secondly the rule says "before the catcher has securely held" Besides that if the Pros don't call interference on the back swing why on earth would we do it in youth ball?


rex

I didn't say you were untutored and uninformed. You gave an astute observation in a private email and followed that with this comment: "A simple philosophy from a simple man." I then asked: "Where the hell is your cracker barrel?"

You've not been shy heretofore about telling umpires what to do. Why all of a sudden are you such a shrinking violet? "I read him the rule, and that's all he needs."

Rookie: Kind sir, if the first play by an infielder results in a dead ball, how do I award the bases?

Rex: That's ordinarily two bases from the time of the pitch, Grasshopper.

Rookie: Kind sir, and what is the "time of the pitch"?

Rex: Uh, you'll have to look that up in the book.

Note: Grasshopper ain't gonna find it in the book. To help along his learning curve he needs a simple answer from a simple man.

BTW: Based on your comment to Warren, if you <b>had</b> told us how you would have ruled, you would have been wrong.

Welcome to eUmpire Rex.

Steve

To You Naysayers:

How would you rule on the following?

R1, no outs. The pitch is delivered, and the catcher securely holds the ball while entirely within the catcher's box. R1 is going nowhere. The batter's late swing carries all the way around and unintentionally contacts the catcher's mitt, sending the ball flying out of the glove and into dead ball territory.

Now, what do you do? Are you guys really telling me that you're going to award bases here?

Yougottabekidding!

Double R Double L and Papa C. are absolutely correct. The described scenario is interference if the ball is securely held by the catcher.

So, you don't believe us, how about some former Pro school rules instructors?

From J/R:

<b>Weak Interference: Return Toss and Backswing:</b>

[...]<i>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</i>.[...]

I disagree. It's not interference if nobody tries to advance. It's a dead ball and nobody may advance. NCAA 6-2-d. In PRO it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball" - IMO, if the catcher catches the pitch and the batter's backswing knocks it out of his glove, the catcher has NOT securely held the ball. If no runner is trying to advance I have a dead ball, no interference. Of course, if the catcher catches the ball, and the batter turns around and clubs him because the catcher says, "I'd hate to see your girlfriend if you thought that looked pretty good", THEN I would probably have interference... NAPBL 4-11.

Let's see: On the one hand we have, in order, Childress, Willson, Porter, Jaksa, Roder and on the other Freix and JJ. I like my chances.

You make an interesting argument.

First, you contend it's not interference because a runner didn't try to advance. That's absolutely irrelevant to the interference statute, which punishes an illegal act regardless. OBR 2.00 Interference (a) makes it clear that the offense may not "hinder" a fielder making a play. Gloving a pitch <b>is</b> making a play. Note the language at 2.00 Obstruction, which also explains what "making a play" is.

Second, you quote the NCAA rule when the book under discussion is the OBR. That's another irrelevant argument.

BTW: This thread has revealed a heretofore undiscovered (because it was unannounced) editorial difference in the NCAA language at 6-2d. Through 1999 the statute read: "<b>before</b> [my emphasis] the pitch is caught." In 2000 the clause became: "<b>as</b> [my emphasis] the pitch is caught." Though the new word does seem to lengthen the time frame for allowing "weak" interference, the editor apparently did not think it significant enough to bring the change to our attention.

Since the OBR language is "before the catcher has <b>securely</b> [my emphasis] held the ball," I don't think there's a millimeter's difference in the two statutes after all.

Finally, here's the most amazing sentence of all. You write:<ul>If the catcher catches the pitch and the batter's backswing knocks it out of his glove, the catcher has NOT securely held the ball."</ul>No sh*t, Sherlock!

That's a joke, right?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 16th, 2001 at 10:22 AM]

Different situations call for different answers, and different questions call for different ways of answering. To give Robert the answer to his play would have only given him the answer to that play. To have him read and understand the rule gives the answer to several situations and plays.

BTW. Are you sure? Based on what you read is not necessarily what I would answer. My disagreement to Warren's statement is that he appears to be promoting a cause of interference under any circumstance. And you have already stated that is not a fact. Even though I can find no reference to a "weak" or "strong" interference in any of my limited rules library.

Carl- Remember what the Chief said.


rex

Carl, my determination of "interference" on this play is backed up by NAPBL 4.11. Also by my book learnin' at Wendelstedt's school. It's only what, 6 or 7 to 2? I still like my chances. Find a hundred more on your side and we'll call it even!

JJ:

It's easy to cite anecdotal evidence from Harry. How about some specific quotes that I can check out with him.

And in case there are people who don't have a 2001 PBUC manual, I'd like to point out that section 4.11 simply <b>copies the language</b> of the OBR with one exception. For the record, here's 4.11 (up to the two mechanics paragraphs):<ul>If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the back swing (i.e., the follow-through), it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.</ul>Now here's the language from the OBR:<ul>If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.</ul>Then, there's this passage from the PBUC:<ul>If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher' s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred.</ul>Here's what the OBR says:<ul>If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter.</ul>Finally, from the PBUC, here is the only "rule" comment that isn't directly from the OBR -- and it is easily inferred from the exact language:<ul>If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.</ul>You'll recall I mentioned that in my earlier post.

Sorry: Your mentioning Harry strikes no fear in my heart. Claiming the PBUC manual supports your position, without quoting the material, also won't get the coon treed. You have a better chance of being pardoned off death row by George Dubyah than you have of winning this argument.

Silly me. I thought the NAPBL was a set of common sense guidelines and clarifications on situations PRO umpires would run into. I guess they issue those books for fun and tell the umpires at some point to ignore them and go by the OBR without exception or question. I now know better.

I'll tell Harry you say hi.

I didn't realize we were voting on this. If no one's running and the batter hits the catcher with the follow-through, I've got nothing.

I guess that makes it seven to three.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

I didn't realize we were voting on this. If no one's running and the batter hits the catcher with the follow-through, I've got nothing. I guess that makes it seven to three.

Bob,

If you've got nothing, then would you award bases in the play I described?

I don't understand you folks. It seems to me you're not digging deep enough. If the follow-through knocks the ball from the catcher's mitt and the runner advances, I don't understand how you can allow this play to stand.

You're actually saying that if the batter strikes the catcher before he gains possession, then it's weak interference - but if he strikes him after he gains possession, it's okay.

I'm utterly baffled.

Hay JJ

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". It seems we have a first. Harry and Jim agreeing on something. Ya ever wonder what they might base that on?


rex

My vote
 

Make it 8 to 3

Jim, I'm NOT saying I've got "nothing". I'm saying it's not interference and I won't award bases. NAPBL (how many times do I have to say this?) 4.11 says, "If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard that he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgement, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing (i.e. the follow-through), it shall be called a strike only (NO INTERFERENCE). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can support my stance here, other than to say read the rest of that guideline (4.11) in NAPBL.

I'm done trying to explain my position with facts that seem awfully clear to me, and then getting ripped for it. Carl said my use of Wendelstedt's name didn't scare him - DUH! It wasn't INTENDED to scare him. It was only intended to state where I got my position - that's how they explained it when I went to Wendelstedt's school. Sorry I can't seem to state a position, give references, and then be jacked for it because someone else does not agree. BTW - thanks to the other 2 folks who DO agree!

Next topic, please...

I did tell him. He doesn't know who "JJ" is. You'll have to email me your full name.

The PBUC (there <b>is</b> no current NAPBL manual) is exactly what you say it is. I trust it implicitly. None can recommend it more highly than I.

Now -- Explain to me how the material I quoted from your 4.11 citation differs from the language of the OBR. What exactly do we learn from 4.11 that contradicts OBR, which I quote explicitly in support of my position.

Bob: I have just one word:

<font color=red size=7>Amazing!</font>

Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed.

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. <b>before</b> 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. <B>after</B> 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 <i>reductio ad absurdem</i>. He says, in effect, If you don't call interference <b>after</b> 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 <b>not</b> interference if it occurs <b>before</b> 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.)

Sorry, Carl, but I didn't "damn well know it". I am also not "deliberately misrepresenting" your position. If I wanted to deliberately anger you I'd call you a name and be done with it. I really don't believe that if a batter's backswing hits the catcher's mitt and knocks the ball out of it I should call him out. Period. Don't assume I'm just looking for a fight because I'm not. I'm also not going to apologize, because all I did was state my position, support it with printed backup, and post it. And you really shouldn't be asking Harry about "JJ" without knowing who "JJ" is. Harry might think you're asking silly questions. You may be well versed in baseball rules, but diiplomacy isn't your strong suit.

Done.

JJ:

It's irrelvant to me whether <b>you're</b> done. That easy to say when the issue is in dispute.

You wrote the following: "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."

I challenge you to quote any statement in context from any of my posts to support that assertion.

That disengenuous comment is what angered me, not that you disagreed. I'll debate the issues until a Democrat wins the White House. But my opponent must represent my position fairly. I'm sure the facts show you did not in this instance.

Sorry, Carl, I beg to differ. The statement you quoted verbatum was NAPBL 4.11 - the same statement I used to support my position. That statement said "no interference", and that's why I said it appeared we were on the same side. Your more recent post clarified that we are not on the same side. Obviously I DID miss something. I just didn't feel like I should have been jumped on for it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress


/QUOTE]Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed. [/B][/QUOTE


Sir,

Now you have escalated your venomous nature by stating publicly that I have declared homosexuality. A statement like that can not defended or condoned. I truly believe you have lost it.

Brad if you are reading any of this I think itÂ’s time you did something. And I donÂ’t mean just erasing the garbage. ItÂ’s time you did something about the author.


rex

JJ: As I clearly said in my post (where I quoted PBUC): The language of 4.11 is the same as the language of OBR. Since I used OBR as <b>my</b> authority, it seemed obvious you were misinterpreting 4.11. That passage <b>adds nothing</b> to the rule book save that with two strikes and <b>weak interference</b>, the batter is out. We never had a disagreement about that.

Concerning the backswing: Evans has no comment and only one relevant play, which supports both our positions on weak interference:<ul>Two strikes...one out...runner stealing second on the pitch. The batter swings and misses. He swings so hard that his follow-through contacts the catcher <b>before the catcher can secure the ball</b>. In the umpireÂ’s judgment...the contact was unintentional. WhatÂ’s your ruling? RULING: The batter is out on strike three. The ball is dead and the runner returns to first.</ul>Of course, that illustrates one of the maddening traits of authorities. They are rarely complete in their rulings since they prepare an interpretation based on a specific case.

Here's a play where the batter's backswing hinders the catcher <b>"before</b> [my emphasis] he can secure the ball." You and I (and everyone else) agree, for the ruling is directly in accord with OBR 6.06(c) CMT.

How hard would it have been for Jim to:

1. leave out "before he can secure the ball." In that case, any hindrance by the backswing would automatically be weak and JJ would be right. OR...

2. add a play in which the backswing hindered the catcher <b>after</b> he secured the ball. Evans could then say....

A significant difference is that the runner in Evans is moving. One might infer that in a similar play, with the backswing contact occurring <b>after</b> the catcher had the ball, that Jim would call interference after all.

Barring that, the only authoritative source that is also specific to the play in question is the comment from Jaksa and Roder, who take the same position I do.

But it's clear we'll A2D on this point.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress /QUOTE]Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed.

You'd better think again, Mr. McDonald. "Out of the closet" means simply one has declared finally his position ON ANYTHING. I know nothing of your sexuality, and I couldn't care less.

Canned Heat...
 

"<i>What we have heyah is a failyer to communicate!</i>" [Strother Martin - Cool Hand Luke]

Look, it is clear the debate on this issue is heating up. Perhaps I can restate things in a way that helps it to cool down a tad.

1. The PBUC/NAPBL 4.11 citation is on point but mostly repeats the language of the casebook comment following OBR 6.06(c), as Carl's post shows.

2. Both the OBR casebook comment AND the PBUC/NAPBL 4.11 reference deal with <u>UNINTENTIONAL</u> contact on the backswing <u>BEFORE</u> 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 <u>EXCEPTION</u> to the rule.

3. However, the logical corollary of the ruling in 2 above is that if the contact was <u>INTENTIONAL</u> and/or occurred <u>AFTER</u> 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.

4. As Jim Porter points out, interference here is not clearly and unequivocally stated but is instead only inferred from the language of the rule and the interpretation. However, authoritative support for that inference comes from Jaksa/Roder as quoted by Jim Porter.

5. The argument that the runners must be stealing for this contact to be interference is not supported by the rule and, as Jim Porter's <i>reductio in absurdum</i> play shows, stealing runners are NOT a requirement for interference to apply in this circumstance. It is not the catcher's play alone that is being interfered with; it is his fielding or throwing too. Catching a pitch IS fielding the pitched ball.

Now of course we are certainly entitled to disagree on this issue, especially when there isn't any truly definitive "official" interpretation upon which to rely. There are many cases in the rules where what is determined by tradition and common practice is not supported by the rules themselves. In this case, however, we have a rule that offers us its own explanation by the application of logic. If one set of circumstances produces 'A' then the alternative set of circumstances must logically produce the opposite of 'A' - namely 'Z'. We also have the authoritative opinion of Jaksa/Roder that using that logic provides an inference that is shared with these instructors from the Brinkman School.

It can be exasperating when every attempt to correct wrong thinking is viewed as condescension. Heck, even the Pope is entitled to be wrong but who could ever condescend to His Emminence? Carl Childress has earned, by his experience and level of expertise, the right to say "<i>Rex, you are wrong</i>" without being accused of condescension. Just because he says "<i>Rex, you are wrong</i>", or "<i>Steve, you are wrong</i>", doesn't necessarily mean he is equating those two with "the great unwashed" (sic). That is fallacious logic on several counts. Besides, some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of modern times would qualify as "the great unwashed". Maybe those guys are simply followers of Ghandi? (grin)

Please, please read the relevant message and value it on the merits of its content, rather than rejecting it simply because you can't handle the perceived writing style of its author, or you are still smarting from some prior unpleasant encounter.

Cheers,

Another wrong conclusion jumped to....
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed.

Rex,

I honestly believe that you have inferred that which was not implied here. I took Carl's reference to your coming "out of the closet" as a gentle jibe at your apparent admission that you have attended the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring.

It has long been held that many amateur umpires only espouse certain specific views because they were trained to those views at a Pro school. The inference is that while Pro school training is excellent for Pro umpires, it is not always entirely applicable or relevant for umpires in amateur leagues. Some amateur officials evidently prefer to conceal their Pro school training for that reason. I believe Carl was congratulating you on your apparent admission that you were Pro trained. The fact he may have misread what you wrote, in that you were actually referring to the top dogs of your association being Pro trained, is a simple mistake. I see no intended offense in what he wrote.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 17th, 2001 at 12:12 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress /QUOTE]Rexie baby: You're out of the closet. I'm impressed.

Wow, Rex, I didn't get that at all. Until <b>you</b> mentioned homosexuality, I wouldn't even have imagined that's what Carl was talking about.

Wow, I'm speechless, I really am. I like you, Rex. I hate to see you get all upset. I hope you reconsider Carl's meaning. I don't think it's what you thought at all.

I think it was a generation gap rearing its ugly head.

JEA states under 6.06(c):<b><i>

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.</b></i>

Furthermore, in discussing 6.06(c) JEA continues:

<b><i><u>Professional Interpretation</u>: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher <u>in which he is trying to retire a runner</u>. 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.</b></i>

This JEA quote would support that batter interference occurs only when a catcher made or attempted to make a play.

<b>What I find interesting</b> is those taking the point of view (in the situated original shown) that the batter should be called out for batter interference<b> went to JEA for reference, used other data from JEA, but failed to highlight this data</b>. 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. <b>I realize many at eUmpire disagree with me <u>and the listed authoritative opinion.</b></u>

Steve
Member
EWS

Re: Canned Heat...
 

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.

Civil, huh? Wanna fight about that? :-)

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. <b>Some</b> 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.

Re: Canned Heat...
 

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,

Same boring chant ...
 

Steve, IMO you have entirely missed the import of the word "<b>encompasses</b>" in the JEA quote. That word means "<b>includes</b>" 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 <i>ipso facto</i> "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 <i>winners</i> and <i>losers</i>. 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,

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:<ul>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.</ul> 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. <b>You will not again without further action from me assert or insinuate that I lie or mismanage my sources to win a debate.</b>

Finally, to the issue at hand:

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

As I reported, I quoted the only passage from JEA that deals with the backswing. Here's a precÃ*s of that material:<UL>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.</ul>Ironically, the portion I selectively (according to you) quoted supports the <b>position about which no one disagrees</b>.

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 <b>everywhere but on the backswing</b>.

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.

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

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), <b>does</b> 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):<ul>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.</ul>There's very little to discuss: It describes a batter "interference" that does not normally result in an out. It is of two types:<ol><li>hinder with the backswing</li><li>hinder the return toss</li></ol>"Weak" interference also applies to a runner. From J/R (70, '95 ed):<ul>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.</ul>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 <b>relevant</b> material.

Not Napping - - just wondering
 

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

From "STRIPES" a most excellent movie
 

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman!
 

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

Chairman's Full Context
 

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

Re: Not Napping - - just wondering
 

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 <i><b>back</b></i>, 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]

Re: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman!
 

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,

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]Unless LL rules are different (and I don't think they are here):<p>If this indeed happened on the backswing, it cannot be "catcher interference."<ol><li>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.</li><li>Unless runners are moving on the pitch or are forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, they do not advance.</ol></li> [/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

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.

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.

Quote:

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.<ol><li>Jim Porter quotes the J/R.</li><li>You say you've never heard of "weak" interference.</li><li>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.</li><li>You say: "You [Carl Childress] wish to use the J/R as your final scource [sic] of authoritative opinion." <B>You cannot support that with comments from any of my posts, either explict or implicit.</b> Your assertion is simply a fabrication, then.</li><li>You say I editorialize because comments about "weak" interference don't exist at the point <b>Jim Porter</b> quoted. (Talk about an irrelevant charge!) You imply I deliberately tried to make it appear otherwise. That comment is just a lie.</li></ol>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 <b>specific</b> 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 <b>after</b> 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 <b>that</b> 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 <b>you</b> were a graduate, and I notice you didn't correct him in any of your subsequent posts.

Much ado about "NOTHEN"...
 

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.

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)

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 "<i>If the catcher had the ball firmly in his grasp..</i>" 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) <b><i><u>OR</u></b></i> 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 <u>already in the rule itself for all to see</u>!

Read OBR 6.06(c) Casebook Comment on the backswing interference. You will find the words "If ... <u>before the catcher has <i><b>securely held the ball</b></i></u> ... (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, <i><b>it wouldn't be necessary to mention this case at all</b></i>, especially including using the words "(not interference)"!

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

"<i>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 <u>before the catcher has securely held the ball</u>...</i>" {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!

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.

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) <b><i><u>OR</u></b></i> 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 <b><i>IS</b></i> 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.

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 <b><i>TWO</i> types of contact on the backswing</b>, 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 <i>our</i> problem. It has certainly been stated more than once.

Cheers,

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

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

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.

Re: Much ado about
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

OBR, CC, WW, JP (maybe) and J/R (maybe) say HE <b><i>IS</b></i> 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:

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.

Re: Re: Much ado about
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: OBR, CC, WW, JP (maybe) and J/R (maybe) say HE <b><i>IS</b></i> 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: Quote: <i><b>PLAY</b>: 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. <b>RULING</b>: weak interference, The ball is dead, R1 must remain at first.</i> 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 <b>intentionally</b> contacts the catcher with his backswing, that is <i>a priori</i> 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.

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

Thanks for the effort of further investigation -

Re: Much ado about
 

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,

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 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! :)

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

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

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" <i>sorties</i> 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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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

Two years ago I had a play similar to this. In a NCAA game a batter hit the catcher in the head on a back swing. There was also a stealling runner. I called interference and made the proper outs. Then my interpreter told in NCAA I was wrong. I had the same thing the other day and I did as nothing and got a raft of stuff. My question is NCAA different or is my rules guy wrong?

He told me also that it was an out in FED but not NCAA. So now I have a headache.

We've heard this all over the various boards MANY times before. PLEASE stop posting responses to some posters and PLEASE do something about your tarnished public image. Puhleeze! :cool: