[GarthB]

Having been gone for quite some time, I'm glad to see familiar signatures now that I'm back.

It's also good to see you are working hard at figuring out problem areas. It will help you continue to progress.

In regards to this particular rule, you say:

"To Garth I say, please provide their written opinions from their training."

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I will ask Chad and Pete if they are willing to share the notes they took in class. I have seen Pete's and they confirm Rich's interpretation.

You then ask a very logical question:

"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???"

You know, Steve, that is my exact thought about the way the OBR talks about the base line. No where in the OBR do they discuss how a runner creates his own basepath. If you follow strictly what is in the OBR, you'd call out any runner who the defense is trying to tag and who is more than 3 feet from a direct line between bases. Wouldn't you think they'd fix that? I guess it's like the running lane, thing, eh?

Regards your comment:

"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."

Obviously I can't say anything based on your experience, but I can based on mine. I can say how they call it based on seeing it called 8-10 times in the last 40 years. I don't know what games you've seen or how often you attend but I remember seeing it called twice in the same week at Candlestick in 1967.

You suggest:

"Maybe this one should be chalked up among the MYTHS until such time as someone can prove it."

If we called everything that the rulebook doesn't clarify MYTHS, we'd have an awful lot of myths. Sometimes we have to accept what is practiced at the highest levels by those who have spend the time and energy learning their craft and researching the intent of rules. I have no problem accepting what the pro schools teach and what Gerry Davis and Doug Harvey have said in clinics. I have no problem accepting years of of interpretation and practice.


You close with:

"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."

Do you provide proof of the other areas in which the rulebook does not provide clear interpretation or guidance? Do you provide proof everytime you use a practice that is not clearly spelled out in the rulebook?

If you do, I salute your consistency, and would suggest that you are truly unique. If not, if you can accept other areas that are similar in their treatment in the rulebook, why then the "cafeteria" style of acceptance?

Again. It was good to see you still on the board. I enjoy reading your posts and watching as you appear to continually improve.

Garth



[Edited by GarthB on Jul 6th, 2001 at 02:21 PM]