[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB

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?

Garth, that is WHY I do look to other official interpretations and authoritative opinion to address those issues that are not fully addressed in the OBR. Your basepath IS addressed there---in fact, in all three!!!
IS THAT NOT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THEIR PURPOSE?
I think so.
Only J/R somewhat specifically addresses the issue of the running lane by stating:

However, in regard to the running lane, it is not interference by a batter runner if
(a) the ball is thrown toward home plate for a play.
(b) he has each foot on or over the 45-foot lane.
(c) he has not yet reached the beginning of the lane, or has already touched or passed first base.
(d) he exits the running lane, or does not enter it, but avoids the throw and does not hinder the fielder accepting the throw. Hence, in regard to the running lane, a batter-runner cannot be guilty of interference for altering the throw of a catcher or other fielder (i.e., the fielder throws poorly, hesitates to throw, or does not throw).

Of course, J/R specificaLly addresses the exclusions to the rule. Perhaps they just FORGOT TO INCLUDE the exclusion you profess!!! I don't think "forgeting" was the reason.

Amazing the other authoritative opinions also wouldn't specifically address an EXCLUSION to the written rule. Wouldn't you agree?? I wonder why they didn't address that exclusion IF IT EXISTS??? Have they stopped their purpose here for some reason?? I would not consider contradicting a rule as being too insignificant to address, but perhaps others might.

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?

Garth, I attempt to follow official interpretation and authorititative as best I can. Much of what is not fully addressed in the OBR is, indeed, further addressed elsewhere in the PBUC, JEA, or J/R. Still, questions arise regarding the more finite details. That is why Childress goes to PBUC and gets updated rulings. I would think this would qualify as it is not specifically addressed anywhere authoritative yet directly contradicts the written rule. Yet, for other reasons, I don't necessarily expect him to include this in his list.

Additionally, I will admit that in certain areas I will alter from the written book and interpretations. This is generally done for the best interest of the game at the age and talent levels I am officiating. (EXAMPLE: I don't call all the balks I see). When advantages are gained or safety is an issue, I try to enforce the rules or bypass them as best suits the situation. However, I would think that is a reason why a runner making contact with F3 SHOULD be enforced at the amateur level, regardless of where the throw originates. Players CAN control their bodies and feet on routine plays. How many players do you see running out of the running lane IN FAIR TERRITORY when they hit a grounder to the outfield and elect to round first base? I can't recall any. Seems they CAN control their bodies and feet, eh???

I don't try to emulate the Pro umps. I would not allow a pitcher to throw broken bat remnant at the batter and remain in the game---no matter who he was. Apparently, the Pro umps think differently. Yet, that illustrates why we as amateur umps should not attempt to emulate the Pro umps. It further illustrates why we need to make decisions regarding what the rules say and intend in order to best meet the needs for the level of play we officiate. That is obviously what the Pros did for Clemens. I don't think it would have been a right decision for LL. Good example???

Just my opinion,

Freix