|
|||
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.
__________________
R...(_o^o_) |
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
Tom: With all due respect to a fellow UT member: You're just wrong. Note that in 6.08(c) the CMT reads: If catcher's interference is called with a play in progress the umpire shall allow the play to continue...." If the catcher (or any fielder) "touches the batter or his bat" with a runner advancing (7.07), the umpire would still leave the ball alive. Why? Well, how about if the batter, in spite of the catcher touching his bat, hit a home run? Defense: Thom advanced R2 in contravention of 6.08(c). 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! |
|
|||
Quote:
Sorry...OBR 4.03(a)
__________________
R...(_o^o_) |
Bookmarks |
|
|