Catchers balk?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Warren - Jaksa/Roder and CC support my position. ALL runners advance...[snip]...They BOTH refer to 7.07 as a valid rule. The J/R exception clearly states that all runners advance if there was a squeeze (R3 stealing)

Rich, you appear to be ignoring the salient questions, so let's put this to bed. Please respond to the following:

1. Do you agree that BOTH 6.08c AND 7.07 specifically cover the case of catcher's interference when there is an R3 attempting to advance by means of a squeeze or steal?

2. Do you agree that I clearly stated that EITHER rule could equally apply in the subject circumstances?

3. Do you agree that I, as an umpire, have an equal right to choose to apply WHICHEVER of the two valid, relevant rules equally cover the subject circumstances?

Rich, you originally stated that the answer to Q1 was "not true". Having reread the casebook comment for OBR 6.08c, are you still making that claim?

The original poster asked for my view, among others, and I stated that I could see no point in rewarding a non-forced and non-stealing R2 for the catcher's interference. I'll stick with that choice and my election to enforce 6.08c instead of 7.07. Now if you, J/R or Carl Childress want to apply OBR 7.07 instead, in exactly the same circumstances, who am I to disagree? BOTH are valid rules for the same situation.

Having said that, I would most certainly apply OBR 7.07 exclusively IF the offense was committed by any fielder other than the catcher. To the best of my knowledge there is no other rule that covers exactly those same circumstances in that extremely unlikely event.

Is 7.07 superceded by 6.08c? I don't know either way for a fact. I heard that point of view quite some time ago, and I don't believe that it was either J/R or JEA that expressed it. Maybe it's true, and maybe not. The fact remains 7.07 IS in the rule book, and as such it may be applied with equal veracity in the subject circumstances. I simply choose to do otherwise, and I believe I have good reasons for my choice -

• 6.08c allows the offended party an option to accept a following play, 7.07 doesn't.

• 7.07 penalises the innocent pitcher with a balk, 6.08c doesn't.

I'll stack those up against keeping that dozey R2 at 2nd base any day! Nevertheless, I do take your point about the distinction between jumping in front of the batter, so preventing legal delivery of the pitch, and simply interfering with the batter's attempt to offer at a legally delivered pitch. It's a fine distinction that you may certainly make if you wish.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 11th, 2003 at 02:07 AM]

[Jim Porter]

The real story behind 7.07 is that many umpires do believe there to be a contradiction with 7.04(d) in conjunction with the comments under 6.08(c). Those comments do address the specific act of a runner stealing on a squeeze play or steal of home.

The only thing 7.07 can do, besides add a balk to the stats, is award a sleeping R2 third base. We're talking about giving a base to a runner who stood still at second and watched his teammate try and steal home and didn't move an inch. In baseball terms, that's really dumb. Both 6.08(c) and 7.04(d) cover all the other possibilities, except for the dumb sleeping R2.

Finally, past umpire schools have been known to have their students scratch 7.07 out of the book. Some OBR leagues with old-timers for UIC's also require their umpires to scratch it out of the book. That includes Rhode Island's Board of Umpires. Of course, as long as your league/association/entity hasn't omitted 7.07 from the book, call it you must.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
The real story behind 7.07 is that many umpires do believe there to be a contradiction with 7.04(d) in conjunction with the comments under 6.08(c). Those comments do address the specific act of a runner stealing on a squeeze play or steal of home.

The only thing 7.07 can do, besides add a balk to the stats, is award a sleeping R2 third base. We're talking about giving a base to a runner who stood still at second and watched his teammate try and steal home and didn't move an inch. In baseball terms, that's really dumb. Both 6.08(c) and 7.04(d) cover all the other possibilities, except for the dumb sleeping R2.

Finally, past umpire schools have been known to have their students scratch 7.07 out of the book. Some OBR leagues with old-timers for UIC's also require their umpires to scratch it out of the book. That includes Rhode Island's Board of Umpires. Of course, as long as your league/association/entity hasn't omitted 7.07 from the book, call it you must.

I stated in my post:

Having said that, I would most certainly apply OBR 7.07 exclusively IF the offense was committed by any fielder other than the catcher. To the best of my knowledge there is no other rule that covers exactly those same circumstances in that extremely unlikely event.

On the basis of your gentle reminder that OBR 7.04(d) can be used in conjunction with OBR 6.08(c), I stand corrected. I probably wouldn't use 7.07 under ANY circumstances! *HUGE grin*

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
...Finally, past umpire schools have been known to have their students scratch 7.07 out of the book. Some OBR leagues with old-timers for UIC's also require their umpires to scratch it out of the book. That includes Rhode Island's Board of Umpires. Of course, as long as your league/association/entity hasn't omitted 7.07 from the book, call it you must.

HA! Thanks to that prompting I have finally remembered where I had seen this instruction before.

I have a copy of the student notes from the February 1982 Kinnamon Umpire School in St Petersburg, Florida. In their rules session that covered OBR 7.07, students were specifically advised that non-stealing and non-forced runners do NOT advance. (p35 for those lucky enough to still have the xeroxed copy I supplied to several posters here some time ago)

Sure that advice may have been superceded by J/R's later interpretation. Or perhaps J/R only reflects that subsequent umpire's maybe didn't remember exactly why you should use the 6.08c/7.04d combination in preference to 7.07! Certainly John McSherry and Joe Brinkman knew! As instructors they both would have been present when Bill Kinnamon conducted that rules session. Was Rick Roder even born then? *BIG grin*

Cheers

[Rich Ives]

1. Do you agree that BOTH 6.08c AND 7.07 specifically cover the case of catcher's interference when there is an R3 attempting to advance by means of a squeeze or steal?

YES

2. Do you agree that I clearly stated that EITHER rule could equally apply in the subject circumstances?

YES

3. Do you agree that I, as an umpire, have an equal right to choose to apply WHICHEVER of the two valid, relevant rules equally cover the subject circumstances?

NO. The current interps available to me (I don't have JEA) say to use 7.07 in this case.


= = = = =

Another example of when rules appear to conflict, and an accepted interpretation is required:

6.05 j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base;

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when_
b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.

If a runner beats the throw but fails to touch the base, the call is "safe" despite the 6.05(j) requirement that he "touch" the base. This is based on the 7.10(b) requirement that makes a missed base an appeal, in spite of the fact that 6.05(j) appears to require a touch.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
1. Do you agree that BOTH 6.08c AND 7.07 specifically cover the case of catcher's interference when there is an R3 attempting to advance by means of a squeeze or steal?

YES

2. Do you agree that I clearly stated that EITHER rule could equally apply in the subject circumstances?

YES

3. Do you agree that I, as an umpire, have an equal right to choose to apply WHICHEVER of the two valid, relevant rules equally cover the subject circumstances?

NO. The current interps available to me (I don't have JEA) say to use 7.07 in this case.

Very well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have a copy of the JEA interpretation, and it is evidently at odds with J/R. For your benefit it is reproduced here:

Professional Interpretation: Catcher interference is any physical act which interferes with the batter while he is preparing or attempting to offer at a pitched ball.

Interference by any other fielder most likely would be committed by a third baseman or first baseman charging home in play situations as described in Rule 7.07.

A play following interference should be construed to mean a play which results from a ball being batted despite the interference.

A play which develops after an interference and is the result of a passed ball or a wild pitch should be governed by the award of first base to the batter and one base to any runner attempting to steal when the defensive interference occurs. ..7.04(d) and 7.07.

Note the last paragraph that includes a reference to OBR 7.07 as having a "one base award to any runner attempting to steal when the defensive interference occurs". That would seem to add weight to the argument that the 7.07 penalties have been superceded by those in 6.08(c) and 7.04(d), but it is admittedly not conclusive.

Between the JEA and my earlier Kinnamon notes, I prefer to stick with 6.08(c) in all circumstances. My 2001 Edition of Carl Childress' BRD #270 reports AO 7-270 (AO = Authoritative Opinion) which cites MLU Mike Winters as saying that we should "Ignore 7.07. It is an error in view of 6.08(c) CMT" [Reported from Golden State Bulletin Board, 4/18/99]. That same BRD reference also points out, in Note 235, that there is a 1987 FED ruling that states "If a runner is not attempting to advance on the catcher's obstruction, he shall not be entitled to the next base, if not forced to advance because of the batter being awarded first base."

That said, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that both the WUA and the PBUC went with the J/R. I say that because NCAA rules in line with the J/R, as reported in BRD #270, and in my experience the PBUC has recently tended to follow the NCAA lead. Obviously Rick Roder - for WUA - would be unlikely to go against his own published volume. I should point out, however, that Roder has admitted J/R is more often a reflection of what its authors "believe" a majority of MLU's might rule than it is an accurate report of any MLB official position on a given subject.

In summary:

6.08(c) and/or 7.04(d)	7.07	Uncommitted
JEA FED BRD #270, A0 7-270 Kinnamon, 1982	J/R NCAA Childress @ eteamz	WUA PBUC

I'd say that pretty much makes it a toss of the coin at the moment, wouldn't you?

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 11th, 2003 at 09:21 AM]