Col. Trautman: It's over Johnny. It's over!
John Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! (From the OscarTM-winning "First Blood")

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [Waits], the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [Runs out of the room by himself] (from the incomparable "Animal House")

There was a rather interesting play dealing with conflicting rules that ended the A's-Rangers game the other day and that I believe went largely overlooked because the people out west still demand to start games at times that are convenient for them. There ought to be a law.

Anyway, with the A's leading 7-6, the Rangers were batting in the bottom of the ninth and had one out, a man on first (Jerry Hairston Jr.), and a full count on the batter, Mark DeRosa. The Rangers had just scored two runs off closer Huston Street to pull within one run of the A's. DeRosa lunged at the next pitch and swung through it for an apparent strikeout as the runner tried to take second. On DeRosa's follow-through, his bat tapped A's catcher Jason Kendall on the helmet, thereby preventing him from throwing the runner out.

Jim Joyce, the homeplate umpire immediately punched out both the batter and the runner, ending the game. Texas manager Buck Showalter argued but later conceded, "He probably got it right. It is involving a veteran catcher." That's a nice concession speech, but I don't see how the catcher's experience has any bearing on the rulebook.

Kendall, of course, loved the call though his comments were equally irrelevant. "His bat hit my elbow. It's all because of Huston's pitch. That was a pretty nasty pitch down and away. He can't help but get carried over the plate."

I see the bat clearly hitting his helmet while Kendall made the throw. However, it seems physically impossible for DeRosa's bat to hit Kendall's elbow on his throwing arm prior to the throw. If he meant his catching arm's elbow, which it does seem the bat did touch, it was before the bat went through and hit his helmet. Therefore, it was before the throw. It seems odd that Kendall didn't mention that his helmet got whacked as he release the ball which seemed like the larger infraction, but maybe he thought mentioning an elbow would sell the call better.

Also, I don't see what getting carried over the plate has to do with anything. That was what the commentators pointed to to buttress the interference argument. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that crossing the plate constitutes interference.

Joyce was confident of his call, "He made contact with the catcher. I understand the momentum aspect but even unintentionally he cannot interfere with the catcher." Again with the friggin' momentum. I wasn't so sure. Oh, and not to doubt Joyce's abilities but there are some cases of interference in which whether it is intentional or not does matter.

The problem with this call is that it deals with a number of rules that are, unfortunately, not completely in agreement. Let's review.

First, here's the Offensive Interference rule itself (2.0):

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter- runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.
Rule 2.00 (Interference) Comment: In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

OK, from this rule it looks like DeRosa should have been called out and Hairston should have been sent back to first with two outs. But let's continue…

Here is the rule that is specific to the batter interfering with the catcher (6.06(c)). I'll break it down since it takes half a page:

6.06
A batter is out for illegal action when…
(c) He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.

OK, again, it seems like the batter is out, doubly here, for interference and for the strikeout.

EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.

Nothing new here because the runner was not out nor was he trying to score.

Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

Again it seems that the runner should return to first and there should be two outs.

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

Again there's nothing new since the runner was not out.

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

This is very close to the play, but no cigar. Yes, DeRoda struck at the ball and bat did go all the way around, And yes, he hit the catcher apparently unintentionally on the backswing (and Joyce seems to agree that it was unintentional given his comments). However, it was not before the catcher caught the ball. It seemed that Kendall had caught the ball before DeRosa's bat, after the big sweeping swing, touched either of his elbows or his helmet. The interference was on the throw. So this codicil of the rule doesn't really apply, but let's assume that Joyce's applied this part of the rule, the call would still be that the batter is out, the ball is dead, and the runner returns to first.

Of course, baseball can't stop there. In addition to the batter section of the rules (part 6), there is more on interference that affects the batter under the Batter section (#7).

7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when…
(a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;

OK, enough, DeRosa's out. I get it. But 7.09 continues…

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;
Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. "Obstruction" by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such "right of way" is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base "obstruction" shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

But here's the kicker:

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

From the comment, if Kendall had dropped the ball or caught it on a bounce and DeRosa had been running to first, it would not have been interference. But he wasn't and the rule seems to overrule the rest and calls Hairston out because of DeRosa's bat.

Just for fun, here are some variations on the rules from Rich Marazzi's The Rules and Lore of Baseball. Unfortunately, he does not provide an example for 7.09(e), but there's more than enough good reading here:

One of the most controversial if not the most controversial play in World Series history took place at Cincinnati on the night of October 14, 1975, in the third game of the fall classic played between the Boston Red Sox and Cincinnati Reds. The play involved rule 6.06(c)…

This was the situation: With Cincinnati batting in the bottom of the tenth after the Red Sox had rallied from a 5-1 deficit to knot the score 5-5, Cesar Geronimo was on first with an opening single. Ed Armbrister then pinch-hit for pitcher Rawly Eastwick. Armbrister bunted the ball in front of home plate, and Boston catcher Carlton Fisk charged to field it. Armbrister and Fisk then came together as Armbrister took two steps toward first, backed up, and then started again.

When Fisk picked up the ball, he threw toward second base in an attempt to get the lead runner. But the throw was wild into center field, and the Reds suddenly had runners on second and third base use of the throwing error.

Boston manager Darrell Johnson along with Fisk argued violently with plate umpire Larry Barnett. They claimed that Fisk was interfered with and the rule should be enforced. Barnett said that, "It was simply a collision.... It is interference only when the batter intentionally gets in the way of the fielder." [again with this "intentional" guff] Dick Stello, the first base umpire, supported Barnett during the protest.

It was interesting to hear both sides of the play Fisk said of Barnett, "He blew it two ways.... The first time was when he didn't call interference on the play. The second time was when he didn't call the man out because I probably tagged him after I got the ball."

Armbrister said, "I hit the ball in front of the plate and it bounced high. I started to break for first, and Fisk just came from behind and bumped me, and if he hit from behind, I would say he interfered with me." You can see why baseball needs them, so please, don't kill the umps!

After the argument the Red Sox issued an intentional walk to Pete Rose to load the bases. Merv Rettenmund then struck out, but Joe Morgan proceeded to single home the game-winning run.

To briefly review the situation let's break a couple of things down. Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. (2.00)

There is no mention in the definition of interference of the word intentional. Umpire Barnett's argument using the word "intentional" was, in my opinion, a mistake. Barnett also revealed that the American League gives umpires a list of special instructions that is a supplement to the rule book. Collisions of this type in the area of home plate are not to be called interference according to A. L. instructions. If this is true, Barnett might be defended. However another rule that supports the Red Sox protest is rule 7.09(1) [now 7.09(j)]. It is interference by a batter or a runner when he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball etc, etc. According to this rule, it was Armbrister's duty to avoid Fisk. The word intentional is used in relation to a thrown ball.

In summary, a play of this type is judgment on the part of the umpire to a certain extent. It's easy to sit down with a pen in hand in a quiet room and evaluate the play. Larry Barnett had to make the call before millions of viewers on national television. He believed his call was the correct one and gave some very good reasons. In demand as a banquet speaker in the off-season, Mr. Barnett has become a baseball personality due mainly to this controversial play.

The jury is going to be put out on this one for a long time. That's what makes baseball the great game that it is.

Nick Bremigan offers his opinion on the play. Barnett made the right call. However, at the time the play occurred, the only place where this explanation could be found was ironically in the "Special Instructions to Umpires" for the National League. (Barnett was an A.L. umpire.) It was belatedly thought that everyone should have access to these interpretations, so they were pirated from the "top secret" "Special Instructions to Umpires" book and put into the regular rule book, which anybody can have access to.

I've also talked to N.L. umpire Terry Tata about the play. Terry gave an emphatic "yes" when asked if Barnett had made the proper call.

It's not chic on my part to challenge two major league umpires, but in my mind Barnett believed it was interference (but not intentional) by his statement, "It is interference only when the batter intentionally gets in the way of the fielder."

Since I've been voted down, I guess the play should be referred to as a "simple collision." Amen!

In a game between the Red Sox and White Sox in the 1950s, Frank Malzone, Red Sox third baseman, was called out when he interfered with White Sox catcher Sherm Lollar. The Chicago catcher was attempting to throw out Jackie Jensen, who was trying to steal second. Malzone missed the pitch and his momentum carried him into Lollar. Jensen was safe on the play. The umpire ordered Jensen back to first, and Malzone was called out.

The umpires admittedly missed the next case involving rule 6.06. The incident occurred on July 9, 1969, at Minnesota where the Twins were hosting Kansas City. The Royals were batting with Bob Oliver on first base and Ellie Rodriguez at the plate. Oliver attempted to steal second. In making his throw to second base, Twins' catcher John Roseboro had to push Rodriguez's bat out of the way. Still Roseboro's throw nailed Oliver. Now the fun began.

"At first I wanted to call them both out," said plate umpire John Rice. "Rodriguez for interference and Oliver at second."

Royals' manager Joe Gordon protested. After several huddles, the umps (Bill Kunkel, Larry Napp, and Russ Goetz were the other three) sent Oliver back to first and ruled Rodriguez out.

Rule 6.06(c) says A batter is out if he interferes with a catcher's fielding or throwing. There also is an exception, saying the batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out. Rule 2.00, however, says if the umpire declares the batter out for interference, other runners shall return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference. This might have caused some of the confusion on the part of the umpires.

"What I did was against the rule book," Rice said, after taking eight minutes to make a decision. Rice said the exception should have been invoked.

In other words when a putout is made, this nullifies the interference as stated in 6.06(c). [This has actually been added to rule 6.06(c) as I mentioned above.]

It is true that Rice made a mistake. But baseball rules are often confusing because they are not consistent. For example, let's assume that Oliver was trying to score from third and Rodriguez interfered with Roseboro. In this case with less than two outs the runner is out. With two outs, the batter (Rodriguez) would be called out. Why not be consistent with the rule? Does the rule punish the offensive team sufficiently if a putout is not made?

Here is another argument: There is a runner on second and one out. The runner attempts to steal third base, and the batter interferes with the catcher, causing the runner to reach third safely. Ruling under 6.06(c): The umpire declares the batter out and the runner would return to second base. There are two outs and a runner is still in scoring position. The next batter then gets a hit and drives in the run from second. Once again I ask, does the rule sufficiently punish the offense?

During the 1955 season in a game played between the Dodgers and Giants, Brooklyn's Sandy Amoros struck out, but the ball got by catcher Wes Westrum when Amoros' bat hit Westrum on the backswing. Amoros reached second base before the dazed Westrum could recover the ball.

If this type of play were to happen today, Amoros would be out as the case book explanation to rule 6.06(c) stipulates, If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If the situation takes place after a third strike it is ruled as interference under 7.09(a) which states, It is interference by a batter or a runner when after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Thus Amoros would end up in the dugout instead of second base.