Jump to content
  • 0

OBR 7.07

wmmliggett

Asked by wmmliggett,

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4256 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

wmmliggett

wmmliggett

Posted
Posted

OK guys, I know opinions vary and I cannot seem to get a definitive answer, even thouhg I believe OBR Rule 7.07 is quite clear.

Situation: Top of 5, 1-1 game, runners at second and third, two outs. Pitcher working from the set, legally staerts his motion to the plate without stepping off. As soon as he does, the runner from third breaks for home. The catcher comes out from behind the plate and catches the ball in front of the plate. I immediately killed it, called a balk on the pitcher, awarded the bases and then announced it was also catcher's interference and awarded the batter first base.

 

I've had umpires tell me I made the correct ruling (some former and current minor league and colloege umpires), and I've had some tell me you penalize one or the other, but you cannot penalize both (including some former minor league and college umpires).

 

I still think I made the right call, but I'm trying to find out definitely. If anybody has a definitive answer, please let me know.

Thankj you

  • Answers 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Popular Posts

sdix00
sdix00

There may be a misunderstanding of what someone means when they say "you don't enforce both".    They may mean, you don't enforce 6.08c and 7.07.      Under normal circumstances, CI is covered by

noumpere
noumpere

Because at once upon a time there was someone who umpires in the major leagues who apparently told someone else with a good internet reputations something to the effect of "7.07 is a mistake.  Cross i

Richvee
Richvee

From what I gather. OBR you are correct. FED Catcher OBS. BR 1st, forced runners advance, runners stealing on the pitch advance.  

29 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

From what I gather. OBR you are correct.

FED Catcher OBS. BR 1st, forced runners advance, runners stealing on the pitch advance.  

  • Like 1
  • 0
BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
Posted

wmmlliiggeett- I would have called INT first, but I don't think it makes one bit of difference. I believe you properly applied the rule here.

Jeff- like Bam suggested, the caveat of the batter abandoning his box is the main point of emphasis in the other thread.

 

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.

 

Please explain to me why you would ever NOT enforce both the balk and the catcher's INT.

  • 0
wmmliggett

wmmliggett

Posted
  • Author
Posted

First, I enforced the balk first because it's the way it's listed in 7.07. Secondly, like I said, I've had minor league umpires tell me you can't call both. their logic being that since the catcher never made contact witht he batter, it's not actually CI. If th catcher does make contac with the batter, then it is not a balk.

 

I agree with you and I think I called it correctly, but those are the arguments I have gotten from college and minor league umpires.

  • 0
sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

First, I enforced the balk first because it's the way it's listed in 7.07. Secondly, like I said, I've had minor league umpires tell me you can't call both. their logic being that since the catcher never made contact witht he batter, it's not actually CI. If th catcher does make contac with the batter, then it is not a balk.

 

I agree with you and I think I called it correctly, but those are the arguments I have gotten from college and minor league umpires.

 

 

There may be a misunderstanding of what someone means when they say "you don't enforce both". 

 

They may mean, you don't enforce 6.08c and 7.07. 

 

 

Under normal circumstances, CI is covered by 6.08c.

In cases of R3 stealing on the pitch, 7.07 takes precedence and requires both a Balk and and CI penalty. 

  • Like 2
  • 0
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

wmmlliiggeett- I would have called INT first, but I don't think it makes one bit of difference. I believe you properly applied the rule here.

Jeff- like Bam suggested, the caveat of the batter abandoning his box is the main point of emphasis in the other thread.

 

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.

 

Please explain to me why you would ever NOT enforce both the balk and the catcher's INT.

Because at once upon a time there was someone who umpires in the major leagues who apparently told someone else with a good internet reputations something to the effect of "7.07 is a mistake.  Cross it out."  So, many did.  Thus, on the play, we'd have R3 score, put B1 at first for the CI but leave R2 at second "because he was too stupid to run on the steal of home."

 

Names left out to protect the not-so-innocent.

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

  • Like 2
  • 0
NFUA_44

NFUA_44

Posted
Posted

wmm

 

MiLB and D1 College umpires misapply rules and get straightlined just like the rest of us.  Taking the time to find out the reason you got it right or wrong is more important.

 

In the other post that is being kicked around on this, there are great discussions about not only the how, but to me more importantly the why which is what can make all the difference in the world.

  • 0
umpstu

umpstu

Posted
Posted

OK guys, I know opinions vary and I cannot seem to get a definitive answer, even thouhg I believe OBR Rule 7.07 is quite clear.

Situation: Top of 5, 1-1 game, runners at second and third, two outs. Pitcher working from the set, legally staerts his motion to the plate without stepping off. As soon as he does, the runner from third breaks for home. The catcher comes out from behind the plate and catches the ball in front of the plate. I immediately killed it, called a balk on the pitcher, awarded the bases and then announced it was also catcher's interference and awarded the batter first base.

 

I've had umpires tell me I made the correct ruling (some former and current minor league and colloege umpires), and I've had some tell me you penalize one or the other, but you cannot penalize both (including some former minor league and college umpires).

 

I still think I made the right call, but I'm trying to find out definitely. If anybody has a definitive answer, please let me know.

Thankj you

I think this situation is catcher's interference. Was the catcher in the box when the pitcher committed his delivery to home? I don't see a balk.

  • 0
NFUA_44

NFUA_44

Posted
Posted

The pitch was caught before it reached the plate.  Balk for a start and stop because he obviously didn't complete the pitch.  The CI gets enforced since the F2 prevented the batter from having a shot at it.

 

There is another thread in the other Forum that relates to something very similar to this sitch.

  • 0
mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

wmmlliiggeett- I would have called INT first, but I don't think it makes one bit of difference. I believe you properly applied the rule here.

Jeff- like Bam suggested, the caveat of the batter abandoning his box is the main point of emphasis in the other thread.

 

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.

 

Please explain to me why you would ever NOT enforce both the balk and the catcher's INT.

Because at once upon a time there was someone who umpires in the major leagues who apparently told someone else with a good internet reputations something to the effect of "7.07 is a mistake.  Cross it out."  So, many did.  Thus, on the play, we'd have R3 score, put B1 at first for the CI but leave R2 at second "because he was too stupid to run on the steal of home."

 

Names left out to protect the not-so-innocent.

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

I remember when it was suggested to cross out 7.07. I disagreed then and I disagree now. It is a special rule for a special situation and both should enforced. 

  • Like 1
  • 0
bjones630

bjones630

Posted
Posted

I think you intrepreted the rule correctly, even though there was not contact between the B and F2, F2 removed the opportunity for B to strike at the ball.  In my mind that is CI, award 1st base.

  • 0
mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

When you have a runner stealing home it is a special case and has a special rule. There is no need to try and make it fit another rule, 7.07 is written for one play and one play only. Read 7.07 and use it if the play ever arises. To be honest, I don't think I have had to use it. 

  • 0
Guest sayhey

Guest sayhey

Posted
Posted

Contact is not necessary for interference to be ruled by U.I.C. Some have referred to this as a"catcher's balk". Your mechanic was perfect. When the catcher stepped out of the catcher's box to glove the pitch he denied the batter a chance to hit the ball. That is interference. Think of it as catcher's interference with a twist. Batter is awarded 1st on catcher's interference and all runners are awarded 1 base because R-3 was stealing.

  • 0
Sayhey

Sayhey

Posted
Posted

It is a special rule for a rare situation. I have always called it a "catcher's balk". The pitcher is given a balk, but in reality it is the catcher that had violated a rule. Why a balk is called on the pitcher, I do not know, but it is a balk. "Time. That's a balk. Runner, you get home. Runner, you get third." Done deal. It's a big penalty for a big infraction.

  • 0
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

The pitcher, not the catcher, has violated the rule, namely pitching while the catcher is not in his box. If the pitcher waits until he moves into the box, then there will be no infraction.

 Share
Go to question listing
×
×
  • Create New...