Quote:
Originally posted by MPC
I don't have any books with me at work so I'll work from memory. Source was Harry's in 94 and Jims in 96. I can reference all of the pros there from bottom to top but I'll leave it at the classroom instructors of Paul Nauert/Mark Barron and Jim Evans. There were plenty more to reinforce the rulebook explanations during drills. One form of reasoning behind why it can happen and why we look for it outside of a throw from behind the runner is the fact that we are to move up the line behind the BR to insure he is within the lane. Otherwise, we could just camp out behind the plate and let the BU handle it all since the ball is being fielded from a position other than behind the runner.
As an example, we can use that throw from F6 that brings F1 down the line toward home into the runners lane. Now, we know that BR can still interfere within the runners lane but he is protected to some extent. So if F1 comes into the lane and contact is unavoidable, BR is protected. If BR established his line in some crazy position and ends up outside the lane and makes unavoidable contact in the last 45', he has violated the runners lane rule. You might hang your hat on normal interference but you'll probably be in a pickle with the base coach when you could just explain that he not only intefered, he was out of the runners lane when he did so. "You know that rule coach, he has to be in the lane the last 45' to be protected."
|
Your reply reminds me of the old saying: "If your client is innocent, argue the facts. If your client is guilty, obfuscate."
Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters. We're not interested in how to explain interference to a base coach. We don't make explanations; we make calls!
We also know that Mr. Evans says interference cannot be called on the batter-runner unless the fielder makes a quality throw to first base: "If a throw which has no realistic chance of retiring the batter-runner is made, the batter-runner shall not be declared out for interference (lane violation) if he is hit by the throw or the fielder cannot make the catch." (That's not an alleged anecdotal statement; it's from page 7:94 in the JEA.)
Of course, no acknowledged rules interpreter has ever published a play where the throw did not come from behind the batter-runner. But that aside, the example you give of the throw from F6 pulling the first baseman from the bag is obviously covered under the "quality throw" doctrine.
Back last year David Emerling posed a question about the running lane, and I wrote a six-part article explaining it. Here, from December 31, 2003, is the key:
The concept of the running lane came into the rules in 1882. Evans says: "The only difference in that layout and todays is that the foul line connected the point of home plate with the center of first base; therefore, part of the runners lane encompassed part of the base." (JEA 6:31)
Couple that fact with Evans opinion: "An allowance should be made for the batter-runner to step inside the foul line as he reaches the immediate vicinity of first base; otherwise, the base is not readily accessible for him to touch since the runners lane runs adjacent and past the base in foul territory." (JEA 6:32)
In 1882 a runner in the lane could run straight through the bag. In 2002 he has to veer into the base, and Evans says that you must cut him slack for that one last step for mankind, uh, the Yankees, who are mankind at my house.
Quiz Question: B1 rolls slowly to the shortstop, who gloves the ball and makes a weak, off-balance throw to first. B1 is now just one step from the bag. He is (a) legally in the lane, or (b) illegally in fair territory. In (a) he veers to his left and crashes the fielder. In (b) he veers to his right and crashes the fielder. In both cases F3 drops the ball.
The point is this: The runner wants to knock the ball out of the fielders hand. Thats why Evans uses the word "intentionally." Under OBR rules you can't call a runner out for interfering with a throw unless the interference is "willful and deliberate." That being so, the $64,000 dollar question is: Exactly how does the running lane keep the batter-runner from crashing into the fielder?
Ok, so hes in fair territory and you call him out when he interferes with F3 taking the throw: "He wasnt in the lane," you explain. "He intentionally crashed into the fielder." Well, being a smart guy, the next time he will run inside the lane. When he crashes the fielder, preventing the catch, you will call what?
You can't get away with: "He's out because he was in the lane."
Finally, what is the fielder doing on the base anyway? Shouldnt he be stretching toward the weak throw? If hes doing his job, there's nothing for the runner to crash into. On the other hand, if the throw from F6 drew him away from his ideal position, then the bad throw absolves the runner from interference in or out of the lane.
In other words, neither the
original lane or the
redrawn lane prevents the batter-runner from crashing the fielder.
Ergo, the only possible reason the rulesmakers could have had for keeping it was to prevent the batter-runner from screening the fielder --
on a throw from behind.
Sorry, but your "example" had already been discussed -- and dismissed -- at great length on Officiating.com.
BTW: You can read the entire series at
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3549
[Edited by Carl Childress on May 3rd, 2004 at 11:26 AM]