Catchers balk?

[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 That would seem to add weight to the argument that the 7.07 penalties have been superceded by those in 6.08(c) and 7.04(d), but it is admittedly not conclusive.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]