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Is 7.07 superceded by 6.08c?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]