Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Around and around and around we go....
Steve, I'm not gonna provide ya proof.
|
Likely because, to the best of my knowldedge, written proof from the sources we commonly use does not exist. Otherwise, you WOULD provide it. I know you that well, Rich.
The JEA states:
The rule serves two purposes: (1) It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base [my underline], and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first.
I am not discussing a BR being hit with a ball or screening F3, but I am discussing item (1) of the JEA quote which is being out of the path and contacting the fielder. Why should that matter regarding WHERE the throw originates? Some have said because that is how it is applied at other bases. My response is that at other bases the runner is not allowed to overrun (after his contact) and typically slides or slows down if not sliding (far less a safety issue). At home plate, where he might overrun, the runner is typically in foul territory (away from the throw) as he has rounded third and headed home. His altering his path to the inside then becomes very obvious. How many such plays do you see occurring there with runners in fair territory interfering with a throw or going there to make contact with a catcher?? Is it possible the rulemakers condsidered this. They may have also considered the NUMEROUS force outs made at first vs. other bases.
Furthermore, JEA adds:
One factor influencing the umpire's judgment on these plays is the quality of the 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.
The ball must be thrown for this rule to be invoked; otherwise, it is impossible for him to interfere with a fielder “taking” a throw.
So, why is a throw off to the home plate side of first yet very easily gloved (say 5-7ft which is an easy step and reach for F3 while still contacting the base) not considered a good throw by you??? Wouldn't that same throw be good if it were to the right field side of the base and gloved, causing the BR to be out??? There is nothing that says a throw must be perfect---it just requires a throw that can realistically retire the runner.
And Garth states in reply to Rich:
Your interpretation is what I was told at a clinic with Gerry Davis and another one, years ago with Doug Harvey.
Your interpretation is what I was told by Chad Buckalew, a former minor league umpire and graduate of Brinkman's.
Your interpretation is what I was told was taught at Jim Evans school by Pete Paluk, a recent grad who went on to UDP.
Your interpretation is the only one I have ever seen enforced by Major League umpires in the past 40 years.
To Garth I say, please provide their written opinions from their training. Hell, Evans, who uses his JEA for training (I am told) doesn't even put it in there.
Wouldn't one think if this is the way it is to be interpreted, that is,
in direct contradiction to the written rule, that SOMEONE of recognized authoritative opinion would have put it in print???
Garth, I have NEVER seen it at the MLB level with exceptance of the Knoblauch play. Of course, that play WAS from the home plate area, and many to this date still agree the umps blew the call with their "no call".
Beyond that, I don't see it happening at the MLB level, so how can you say how they call it (or don't)??
However, I have in the past and continue to see it at the amateur level.
Where's the beef????
You provide proof for your other rule modifications, so why does that seem to be asking so much here???
Maybe this one should be chalked up among the MYTHS until such time as someone can prove it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this until I see written proof. Maybe the MLB umps you speak of will do it your way and by the comments mentioned. I only hope amateur umpires will realize they should have proof when asked to accept an interpretation that
directly contradicts the rule. Keep in mind,
there IS proof (JEA) that states the rule is there to prevent players from crashing the first baseman.
Just my opinion,
Freix