OBR 707

[jr12]

17U Summerball OBR. R3, LH batter at bat.

R3 stealing home. LH batter sees R3 coming home. Batter clears out. (not just out of the box, but completly out of the dirt circle)

F2 jumps in front of the plate, catches the pitch and tags out R3.

My first thought is 707. I should kill the ball, give batter 1B and advance R3 to home, however since the batter ran out of the circle F2 didn't interfere with anyone. Had the batter stood in the box I would have enforced the interference.

Nobody even questioned my call, but what are the thoughts on here???

[Thunderheads]

I'll stab at it ....

the batter cleared out, ...no INT ....

I'd just call BALL, R3 out (if that's what you had) and you're good!

[LMSANS]

I'll stab at it ....

the batter cleared out, ...no INT ....

I'd just call BALL, R3 out (if that's what you had) and you're good!

I'm with Jeff. :cheers:

[bam]

Ball? Why waste a strike? :wave:

[jr12]

thanks, guys.R3 was third out, so ball or strike didn't matter.

[Jimurray]

thanks, guys.R3 was third out, so ball or strike didn't matter.

Depending on the count, it matters in who bats in their next inning. But I wouldn't have had the out. I would have had the balk and Int.

[Thunderheads]

thanks, guys.R3 was third out, so ball or strike didn't matter.

Depending on the count, it matters in who bats in their next inning. But I wouldn't have had the out. I would have had the balk and Int.

Please tell us where the INT occurs?

[Jimurray]

thanks, guys.R3 was third out, so ball or strike didn't matter.

Depending on the count, it matters in who bats in their next inning. But I wouldn't have had the out. I would have had the balk and Int.

Please tell us where the INT occurs?

By Rule 7.07: "the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter

shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

Example is same sit but batter stays in box and doesn't swing. Coach says he didn't get interfered with. I say that's good because your catcher wouldn't have a head anymore. Read the rule.

[Thunderheads]

thanks, guys.R3 was third out, so ball or strike didn't matter.

Depending on the count, it matters in who bats in their next inning. But I wouldn't have had the out. I would have had the balk and Int.

Please tell us where the INT occurs?

By Rule 7.07: "the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter

shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

Example is same sit but batter stays in box and doesn't swing. Coach says he didn't get interfered with. I say that's good because your catcher wouldn't have a head anymore. Read the rule.

Already read the rule.

We don't have a batter in this situation ...he's cleared the box.......

[UmpJM]

I got nothin' but an out on the OP.

The catcher did not interfere with the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch.

JM

[MPLSMatt]

Hey guys, can someone point me in the direction of the FED equivalent? My recollection is that there is no "catchers balk" and you either have catchers obstruction (if contact is made with batters swing) or nothing. Can't find anything different in the rulebook.

[Rich Ives]

Strictly speaking it's a balk and CI.

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a

steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession

of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter

shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

All that's required for a violation is that the catcher step on or in front of the plate without the ball.

Just being there is the interference.

If the batter just stood and watched it would be a violation would it not?

If the pitch was headed up and in and the batter bailed it would be a violation would it not?

The catcher blew it - too bad catcher.

[UmpJM]

Matt,

There is no equivalent "double penalty" (i.e. Catcher Interference/Obstruction and a balk) in the FED rules. If the catcher steps up and receives the pitch, precluding the batter from offering, with an R3 advancing the penalty in FED is simply Catcher Obstruction.

The only difference in the resulting penalty is if you have a sitch with R3 and R2 only,uand the R3 attempts to advance on a steal/squeeze, and the R2 stays at 2B like a moron, and the catcher steps up obstructing the batter, then the R2 stays at 2B - whereas under OBR he would be awarded 3B.

In ALL other 7.07 type sitches, the penalty would produce the same end result under FED and OBR.

JM

[Jimurray]

Hey guys, can someone point me in the direction of the FED equivalent? My recollection is that there is no "catchers balk" and you either have catchers obstruction (if contact is made with batters swing) or nothing. Can't find anything different in the rulebook.

8-3-1© adds the criteria of stepping and also gives stealing runners a base as opposed to all runners in the OBR balk:

c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a ­batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any ­fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e).

In the OP I still have 7.07 violated. But if you are in the other camp would you agree the pitch will always be a ball?

[UmpJM]

Jim,

Heck, you could argue under FED 6-2-4d1b that it's always a strike.

Personally, I'd just judge the pitch on its merits.

JM

[Jocko]

By rule there is INT. In FACT, there is no INT. If you call INT you would be correct and winf up with an EJ after the s**tstorm. If you don't call it, I seriously doubt anyone would notice (besides a rat) and he would easily be shut down. Either call would be ok, IMO. The rat would argue and be correct, but after talking to my partner about the hot weather and glm on the third row, the call stands and rat goes back to his cheese.

[grayhawk]

Jim,

Heck, you could argue under FED 6-2-4d1b that it's always a strike.

Personally, I'd just judge the pitch on its merits.

JM

I think Jim means that since the pitch never reached the plate, it couldn't have possibly been a strike.

[Rich Ives]

By rule there is INT. In FACT, there is no INT. If you call INT you would be correct and winf up with an EJ after the s**tstorm. If you don't call it, I seriously doubt anyone would notice (besides a rat) and he would easily be shut down. Either call would be ok, IMO. The rat would argue and be correct, but after talking to my partner about the hot weather and glm on the third row, the call stands and rat goes back to his cheese.

So who is the rat here?

[UmpTTS43]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

[Jimurray]

Jim,

Heck, you could argue under FED 6-2-4d1b that it's always a strike.

Personally, I'd just judge the pitch on its merits.

JM

I think Jim means that since the pitch never reached the plate, it couldn't have possibly been a strike.

That's what I would think. So same sit bases loaded, 3-2 count, pitch right down the middle but caught before the plate what do we have?

[Rich Ives]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

If the batter elects to not swing - can you have int?

How is that different than a bail?

Would you thus say there cannot be int unless the batter swings?

This is a special rule - if the catcher jumps out to field the pitch it is automatically int and a balk.

[Jimurray]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

This rule has a balk in it also that is not referenced in rule 8.05. They used a balk and INT wording to get the penalty they wanted.

[UmpTTS43]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

If the batter elects to not swing - can you have int?

How is that different than a bail?

Would you thus say there cannot be int unless the batter swings?

This is a special rule - if the catcher jumps out to field the pitch it is automatically int and a balk.

Missing the point. It is a special rule, a special rule dealing with CI. If the batter has a legal position within the box the catcher must give the batter every opportunity to offer at the pitch. When the catcher receives the ball prior to reaching the plate or over the plate, he has taken this opportunity away from the batter, whether he swings or not, hence INT. Once the batter leaves the box he is no longer given protection under this rule for INT.

[UmpTTS43]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

This rule has a balk in it also that is not referenced in rule 8.05. They used a balk and INT wording to get the penalty they wanted.

The balk was added in order to incur an additional penalty. There is only one base situation in baseball where the balk actually means anything. This rule is so special it only addresses one situation/play where it can be applied. There are other rules in place concerning CI that take care of the 99.99% of the plays that occur.

[Rich Ives]

7.07 is an INT rule. Since the batter bailed you can no longer have INT. The most you could get is a balk for the catcher receiving the ball prior to it crossing the plate. You can get into trouble by taking the rules literally. Don't believe me, read 1.01. Better yet read the definition of Interference under 2.00. Pay special attention to the last sentence of the definition. OBR is a poorly written book of rules where you need additional training and experience to fully implement them correctly.

If the batter elects to not swing - can you have int?

How is that different than a bail?

Would you thus say there cannot be int unless the batter swings?

This is a special rule - if the catcher jumps out to field the pitch it is automatically int and a balk.

Missing the point. It is a special rule, a special rule dealing with CI. If the batter has a legal position within the box the catcher must give the batter every opportunity to offer at the pitch. When the catcher receives the ball prior to reaching the plate or over the plate, he has taken this opportunity away from the batter, whether he swings or not, hence INT. Once the batter leaves the box he is no longer given protection under this rule for INT.

I'm not missing your point, I'm in favor of my counterpoint.