I had a play where the offensive coach wanted a catchers balk. Now I know that it didnt happen on the play in question, but was wondering if anyone out there has ever called it and why. And if not, I guess it would have to be really blatant, so under what circumstance would you call it?
On my play last week, R3 breaks for home as pitcher starts wind-up. As the pitch comes in, catcher rises out of stance to catch pitch, which was a pitch-out, (so it looks as if either the pitcher recognized it and then threw outside, or the defense thought it might be coming, so they pitched out).
As the catcher reaches over the left-handed batters box to receive the pitch, batter makes half-hearted attempt to bunt. Catcher tags out runner. Offensive coach obviously bummed his brilliant play didnt work wants cathcers balk. Im like "wha?".
Opinions? Examples?

I'm glad you asked!
 

The so-called catcher's balk to which you refer is actually a special case of catcher's interference under OBR 7.07 for which the penalty is a balk charged to the pitcher. There is an argument that OBR 6.08(c) was intended to supercede OBR 7.07, and that the latter rule should have been deleted as a result. The only difference in penalty evidently applies to a runner on 2nd base who is neither stealing nor forced to advance on the play.

I have never used OBR 7.07 myself, but I think I have seen it used to great effect during a District League 1st Div Grand Final. The catcher saw R3 attempting to steal home on the pitch. F2 stepped out in front of the plate to glove the pitch in time to tag the stealing runner, and so deprived the batter of an opportunity to offer at the pitch. The umpire in question made a great call, considering he had probably NEVER BEFORE seen the circumstances in <i>his</i> officiating life either, to kill the play and advance all runners including the stealing R3 before awarding the batter to 1st base.

I don't remember if R2 was either forced or stealing on that play, so I can't tell you whether my colleague's justification came from OBR 7.07 or OBR 6.08(c). It was only afterward that I checked to see why he'd made the awards that way. All I could do was to hope that someday I would have the presence of mind to make such a decisive call in such an obscure situation during such an important and stressful event. It was a legendary call, just like the umpire who made it. Unfortunately he was killed in a mining accident - aged 36 years - so we'll never know just how great an umpire he might have become.

Bottom line: Any time the catcher interferes to deprive a batter of an opportunity to offer at the pitch in those circumstances I would make that call. OTOH, I don't know whether I would choose to apply OBR 7.07 for the expressed purpose of having a non-forced, non-stealing R2 awarded a base as part of the penalty. The cost of rewarding that immobile "runner" is for a balk to be charged against a pitcher who may have done absolutely nothing wrong. I'm not sure that's a fair trade. If those who say that OBR 6.08(c) was intended to supercede OBR 7.07 are correct, then the rule makers must clearly have agreed because they specifically included the case in their interpretive Casebook Comment for OBR 6.08(c).

Hope this helps

Cheers

Can someone clear up this then?

B1 about to take the pitch
R3 starts for home as soon as
Pitcher is in motion to throw
Catcher sees this and JUMPS IN FRONT of Batter and catches the ball

He then runs UP the line to make a tag.
Runner has no choice (in order to avoid collision) begins to slide, but as the runner is about to slide

The Catcher lowers his sholder and flips the guy who "could" have been safe.

based strictly on the information I have given you, nothing else, (no "what ifs" and was the batter/catcher/ doing ?)


Please apply a ruling in Adult Baseball (Strict ball)
and YOUTH baseball...

What happens? And in Youth Ball, what would you do if the league rules regard safety and sportsmanship as paramount!


based strictly on the information I have given you, nothing else

thanks

I think I've probably already answered this for you in another thread, but FWIW:<ul>Adult Ball - OBR<p><ol><li>Call and signal "Time" immediately the catcher catches the pitch,<p><li>Award the batter 1st base on the catcher's interference,<p><li>Award all stealing or forced runners, including R3, one base.</ol><p>Youth Ball - OBR:

Same as above except I'd eject the catcher if there was a specific youth rule covering no malicious contact. Otherwise, it would depend on how malicious and whether I adjudged that OBR 9.01(d) should be applied in the subject case. Your comment about the league's stated emphasis would certainly affect my judgement in the latter case.</ul>Hope this helps

Cheers

" 3. Award all stealing or forced runners, including R3, one base."


Warren, in 7.07 the pitcher is charged with a balk so <b>ALL</b> runners get a base AND batter gets 1st on the interference.

"R3 breaks for home as pitcher starts wind-up. As the pitch comes in, catcher rises out of stance to catch pitch, which was a pitch-out, (so it looks as if either the pitcher recognized it and then threw outside, or the defense thought it might be coming, so they pitched out).
As the catcher reaches over the left-handed batters box to receive the pitch, batter makes half-hearted attempt to bunt."

1..This is NOT a balk since F2 did NOT leave catcher's box before release of pitch.
2..You don't mention if the batter is left-handed or right-handed.
3..F2's reach extended into the batter's box, which makes it (OBR) catcher's interference.
4..OBR 6.08 . (c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

Bob

Rich, you should have read my admittedly long first post in this thread. You can penalise the subject behaviour <i><b>either</i></b> by applying OBR 6.08(c) <b><i>or</b></i> by applying 7.07. The offenses are identical. There is a suggestion that 6.08(c) was actually intended to supercede 7.07, and that 7.07 was left in by mistake. I elected to penalise under OBR 6.08(c)Comment.

The only difference between the two provisions is that 7.07 will advance a non-forced runner who was not stealing on the pitch. I personally don't see the value in rewarding a runner whose advance wasn't interferred with because he simply wasn't making one! As you correctly pointed out, ALL runners advance under 7.07, regardless.

Cheers

Bob, the original poster already stated in his post that he KNEW his play was NOT a balk, but not for the reasons you advanced. You should look at OBR 7.07 to see the OTHER sort of so-called CATCHER'S BALK. The poster was actually asking whether anyone had actually called THAT type of catcher's balk.

Cheers

--Yeah, I knew mine wasnt a balk. The catcher did not come out in front of the plate. As the pitch was coming in, he rose up over the lefthanded batters box and received the pitch, ala a pitchout.
He then came back across, dropped down in front of the plate and nailed the runner coming from third. A righteous play.
Offensive coach was just looking for something, because his play backfired. So he started screaming catchers balk. I knew it wasnt, or even close.
Just got me to wondering if anyone had called it and why, or if not, when would they. To me, on something like that, it would have to be pretty blatant and egregious.

Warren,

You might recall that I posted on UT about one I had a couple of years ago.

One play. Bases loaded, offense initiats squeeze play.
I (PU) called a catcher's balk as F2 stands up and steps on the plate(7.07), FU then called a balk on F1 who started and stopped his arm movement(8.05(a)) as F2 withdraws from plate, F1 delivered pitch, and F2 bumps batters bat as he reaches in front of the plate to cut off pitch and tag runer, therefore catcher's interference(6.08(c)).

The defensive coach was still shaking his head and studying his rule book after the game.

Roger Greene

Warren, two things

<b>FIRST:</b> You said: "You can penalise the subject behaviour either by applying OBR 6.08(c) <b>or</b> by applying 7.07. The offenses are identical."

This is not true. 6.08(c) is for a catcher interfering with the batter. 7.07 is for the specific case where, in addition to the CI, R3 was also trying to steal home on the pitch.

The original play had R3 breaking for home on the play, so 7.07 is the one to apply.

<b>SECOND:</b> Your post that I "corrected" had THIS play described:

<i>B1 about to take the pitch
R3 starts for home as soon as
Pitcher is in motion to throw
Catcher sees this and JUMPS IN FRONT of Batter and catches the ball.</i>

It was in response to this that you said: "3. Award all stealing or forced runners, including R3, one base."

As this CLEARLY had the catcher jumping in front of the batter, 7.07 most definitely is the rule to apply.

There is no such animal as a "catcher's balk".

I called a balk on a LHP in a Pony League game about 30 years ago. R2, "D" going to give an intentional walk. Pitcher stretches, and F2 jumps out about six feet outside catcher's box, BEFORE the release of the pitch. I call "BALK", then explained why to the pitcher ("you did nothing, your catcher did), both managers, both stands, and resumed game. Not one squawk from anyone.

In 44 seasons, that was the ONLY time that happened.

Bob

Rich, I draw your attention to the following passage from the Casebook Comment for OBR 6.08(c):<ul>If the catcher (or any fielder) interferes with the batter, the batter is awarded first base. If, on such interference, a runner is <u>trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third base</u>, the ball is dead and the runner on third scores and the batter is awarded first base. If the catcher interferes with the batter with no runners <u>trying to score from third on a squeeze or steal</u>, then the ball is dead, batter is awarded first base and runners who are forced to advance, do advance. Runners not attempting to steal or not forced to advance remain on the base they occupied at the time of the interference.<i>{"my underlines}</i></ul>As you can see, OBR 6.08(c) clearly DOES cover the exact same circumstances as are covered under OBR 7.07.

*sigh* Maybe it was LATE when you read my post, or maybe you failed to read the earlier posts wherein I described the relationship between OBR 7.07 and OBR 6.08(c). Please check the Casebook Comment for OBR 6.08(c) to realise what you have said is <b>not</b> strictly correct, and that <b><i>either</i></b> OBR 6.08(c) <b><i>or</i></b> OBR 7.07 may be applied in these circumstances. I elected to apply OBR 6.08(c) for the reasons stated. Thank you.

Cheers

The offenses described under OBR 4.03(a) and OBR 7.07 are each commonly referred to as a "catcher's balk", but most of us also realise that a balk is <u>an illegal act committed by the <i>pitcher</i>, not the <i>catcher</i></u>. However, in neither rule case is there any illegal act committed by the pitcher, so by definition there should be no balk. That notwithstanding, in both cases the Balk penalty is expressly and specifically applied under the rule! Go figure. I personally believe that there are good reasons for that.

In Australia we have been instructed NOT to apply OBR 4.03(a) EXCEPT on the last pitch of an intentional walk, and then ONLY if it was so blatent a breach that it could not reasonably be ignored. According to Evans the pro's are instructed to ignore the rule altogether. I personally disagree with either direction, as I explained in my article at Officiating.com entitled <i>Defending the Catcher's Balk</i>. And please note that I too knew there was no such thing as a "catcher's balk" when I wrote that article. But neither Roger nor I can help by what terms most people commonly refer to these two rule offenses. You might as well try to hold back the tide as to attempt to change the perceptions of so many over so small a point.

Cheers

Warren - Jaksa/Roder and CC support my position. ALL runners advance.

In this thread on eteamz (http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/boards/obrrules/message.cfm?id=45819), CC posted the following (The original question seems to be missing, but note the use of 7.07)

<I>2. The catcher jumps in front of the batter, receives the pitch, and tags the runner. Balk AND catcher's interference. R3 scores on the balk; B1 goes to first because of the catcher's infraction. (OBR 7.07)</I>

= = = =

In chapter 14 on Catcher’s Interference of J/R, Roder writes:<i> “Runners who are not forced and were not stealing must return to their TOP base. <b>Exception:</b> If an R3 was stealing, all runners are awarded their advance base (7.07).</I>”

The bolded “Exception” is as it appears in the book and not my attempt to point it out.

= = = =

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:<ol><li>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?<p><li>Do you agree that I clearly stated that EITHER rule could equally apply in the subject circumstances?<p><li>Do you agree that <b><i><u>I</u></i></b>, as an umpire, have an equal right to choose to apply WHICHEVER of the two valid, relevant rules equally cover the subject circumstances?</ol>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 <i>my</i> 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 <b><i>exactly</b></i> the same circumstances, who am I to disagree? BOTH are <b>valid</b> rules for the same situation.

Having said that, I would most certainly apply OBR 7.07 <b><i>exclusively</b></i> IF the offense was committed by any fielder <i>other than the catcher</i>. 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 -<ul><li>6.08c allows the offended party an option to accept a following play, 7.07 doesn't.<p><li>7.07 penalises the innocent pitcher with a balk, 6.08c doesn't.</ul>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]

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

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. (<i>p35 for those lucky enough to still have the xeroxed copy I supplied to several posters here some time ago</i>)

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

<i>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?</i>

YES

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

YES

<i>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?</i>

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:

<i>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;</i>

<i>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.</i>

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.

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:<ul><b><i>Professional Interpretation:</b></i> 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 <i>any other fielder</i> most likely would be committed by a third baseman or first baseman charging home in play situations as described in Rule 7.07.

<i>A play following interference</i> 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.</ul>Note the last paragraph that includes a reference to OBR 7.07 as having a "<i>one base award to any runner <u>attempting to steal</u> when the defensive interference occurs</i>". 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 <b>AO 7-270</b> (AO = Authoritative Opinion) which cites MLU Mike Winters as saying that we should "<i>Ignore 7.07. It is an error in view of 6.08(c) CMT</i>" [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 "<i>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.</i>"

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:<center><table width="75%" border="1">
<tr align="center" valign="top"><td width="25%">6.08(c) and/or 7.04(d)</td><td width="25%">7.07</td><td width="25%">Uncommitted</td></tr>
<tr align="center" valign="top"><td>JEA<br>FED<br>BRD #270, A0 7-270<br>Kinnamon, 1982</td><td>J/R<br>NCAA<br>Childress @ eteamz</td><td>WUA<br>PBUC</td></tr>
</table></center>
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]