Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
.[/B]
|
Unfortunately for your position, the OBR rule book cares not a whit about common sense/fair play since it unwaveringly favors the team on offense.
-----------
Well, unfortunately for my position, my comments on the 5' high throw were based on FED interpreting that it is runners lane violation if the act of running out of lane is what caused the throw to be high. It appears that they are following the reasoning of the example I referenced about the steal. I do realize, even though the rule book lawyers here have failed point out the obvious, that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." If the FED governs the h.s. level of play and the Fed wants to consider the high throw over the head to be called int, how do you overlook that? I do believe, based on OBR(and Jimmie's Doctrine", that there has to be a "quality throw" if the runner interferes with it outside of the lane. I also believe that inside the lane it pretty much has to be intentional.
--------------
There's simply no connection between a batter interfering and causing a throw into centerfield during a steal, and the batter-runner not in the lane when the catcher launches one into right field. As is basketball, it's a matter of time and distance.
--------------
Agreed. See above. Time and distance? It's not basketball time and we are a long distance from it.
--------------
The catcher has but a
moment to make his throw to prevent a stolen base. In the
close quarters at the plate, when the batter is out of the box, even "obstructing the catcher's vision may be interference." (Evans)
But the running lane doesn't operate for the first 45 feet. Let's say it takes a speedy runner three to four seconds to reach first. The catcher has ample time and plenty of room to make a quality throw. When he sails the ball into right field -- even with a runner not in the lane! -- it simply cannot be, to use your word, "int."
--------------
Again, Agreed.
[/B][/QUOTE]