As others have said, sounds like catcher's interference (obstruction).

The so called catcher's balk, OBR 4.09(a) is out dated and no longer applies to the modern game. The rule was written in the 19th century when the catcher's box was the foul lines extended, back 10 feet from the plate and the pitcher pitched underhand from 55 feet.

Hello from the East County also.

Catchers Interference...not a balk or anything else. People like to call it a balk since it explains the reason for sending a potential steal to the next base.

But a balk does not send the batter to first. So it is catchers interference. Batter needs not make contact with the catcher for this call. If the catcher is out of the catchers box (i.e., infront/on the plate then it is interference).

Do you use the County for your games?

<hr color=red><p>Tom: With all due respect to a fellow UT member: You're just wrong. Note that in 6.08(c) the CMT reads:<ul><p>If catcher's interference is called with a play in progress the umpire shall allow the play to continue...."</ul><p>If the catcher (or any fielder) "touches the batter or his bat" with a runner advancing (7.07), the umpire would <i>still</i> leave the ball alive. Why? Well, how about if the batter, in spite of the catcher touching his bat, hit a home run?

You are saying that with the runner coming from third, catcher interference is <i>autotmatically</i> a dead ball, as per 7.07. That cannot be right. The only time it could be right is if the catcher jumped in front of the plate so that the batter <i>couldn't</i> swing.

But in that instance, with R3 moving, 6.08(c) would be perfectly capable of sending B1 to first and R3 to home.

Mike Winters on the Golden State Bulletin Board opined he always told his students in umpire school to scratch out 7.07. Reason: It's now out of date, for 6.08(c) entered the book 20 years later and covers everything available in 7.07 <i>except</i> it doesn't charge the pitcher with a balk he didn't commit.

The difference between 7.07 and 6.08(c) is so miniscule as to be unseen by anything except an electron microscope. It affects only R2, and only when R2 doesn't run when R3 takes off for the plate.

If that happens, the OBR umpire must choose <i>between</i> 6.08(c) and 7.07. The 6.08(c) ruling allows only runners who are force or moving on the pitch to advance following catcher interference. Thus, R2 stays at second.

The 7.07 ruling allows <i>everybody</i> to advance. There was a balk, remember? Thus, R2 goes to third.

If such did happen, you would be in for a protest -- regardless:<ul><p>Defense: Thom advanced R2 in contravention of 6.08(c).<br>Offense: Thom did not advance R2 as per 7.07.</ul>Well, this play is on my wish list for interpretations from the PBUC. We'll find out, just in time for Christmas, what they would do in the minor leagues.

BTW 1: The play must have happened somewhere, sometime in the NCAA. See 8-3o, where the college rules committee says, in effect, enforce "7.07."

BTW 2: Harry Wendelstedt told me if it happened to him, he would enforce 6.08(c): "If that schmuck on second is so studid he doesn't run, I ain't gonna give him a base."

As they say in The Show:

I hope this helps!

Sorry...OBR 4.03(a)