Didn't know?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, I'd apply the same ruling in FED.

If it wasn't a passed ball/wild pitch, though, the ruling is different from the above. IT's "weak interference" in OBR and "interference" in FED.

Bob, if you call batter interference in FED, the batter is out (and runners return). FED does not have the intermediate remedy of merely returning the runner and not calling the batter out, right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, if you call batter interference in FED, the batter is out (and runners return). FED does not have the intermediate remedy of merely returning the runner and not calling the batter out, right?

Correct. That's what I meant by OBR has "weak interference" and FED has jsut "interference" (or whatever my specific post was)

[lawump]

I've never heard of "weak interference"...but that's because I was taught the rules using the J/R Manual (the textbook for the B/F umpire school). J/R calls it "backswing interference" or "return toss interference".

The result is the same, though, as what you describe as "weak interference".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by lawump

I've never heard of "weak interference"...but that's because I was taught the rules using the J/R Manual (the textbook for the B/F umpire school). J/R calls it "backswing interference" or "return toss interference".

The result is the same, though, as what you describe as "weak interference".

I prefer the term 'backswing interference': the interference isn't weak, the penalty is.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I prefer the term 'backswing interference': the interference isn't weak, the penalty is.

And, it's not a "backswing", it's a "follow-through"