[Bfair]

Originally posted by Tim C (in black)
***answered (in blue)

Over 100 years of baseball has extended the OBR by rulings. Nine simple rules in a $4.00 pamphlet cannot simply cover everything that can happen.
That is why sources such as PBUC, NAPBL, JEA, and J/R are all cross referenced. SOMEONE should have addressed this in print. Of course, J/R really has..... and DID NOT include the position taken by you as one of their exclusions---again I ask, why not?? J/R specifically DOES NOT support your position, therefore, you are ready to discount their well acknowledged writings. No other authoritative source lists your exclusion to the written rule despite their detailed discussions of the specific rule. Again I ask, don't you think they would consider something that CONTRADICTS the written rule as worthwhile to addresss??? Please address these questions.

For you to "demand" written proof is a fine challenge but unnecessary.
Your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the rulebook and also contradicts the other information I can locate within other authoritative sources which I have presented (JEA and J/R). Why would you think it unnecessary for ANYONE to say, "Where has any authoritative source put that interpretation in print?" That is not wrong to ask.
What IS wrong is when someone cannot produce the written support of what they profess . I have provided such support, you have not. That is where you, Rich, Garth, and others currently stand---unable to produce any written proof of what you profess. IMO, what is worse yet, however, is for someone to practice on the field a contradiction to the rule until that contradiction can be authoritatively supported.

Steve, we know that even laws in the United States can become accepted by practice and common use. So do simple baseball rules.
and when done so, they are incorporated as law (or rule) or at the very least, discussed by authoritative sources. Although I have respect for those I am discussing this rule with, these posts do not constitute authoritative opinion. Nor should hearsay statements regarding Pro School teachings. Present the literature dispersed by those schools. I could accept that (at least for the Pro level). I have yet to see THAT or ANYTHING in writing other than comments of people's opinions. That does not mean I do not respect those opinions, but until proven accurate I should not accept those opinions.

It is unbelieveable to me that a top-notch, well thought of umpire such as yourself can actually believe that coaches would ask for F3 to be protected by a violation of the runners lane. This time you have mystified even me.
Why? The throw, although off toward home plate yet over fair territory, is very catchable and able to retire the BR if the BR is in the lane described by the rule. This IS NOT a bad throw if it can retire the BR provided F3 is not interfered with. The person throwing has done what needed to be done. The rules say the BR should be in his lane and not out in fair territory crashing the fielder. JEA states that, indeed, is one of the PURPOSES of the rule, correct??? Therefore, why should the BR be allowed to crash F3 simply because the throw did not originate from the home plate area. Tee, to me, THAT is not logical.

There are literally hundreds of intrepretations (associated with all baseball rule books) that have developed by "accepted practice" over the decades.
Please tell me more of these that are not addressed anywhere in PBUC, JEA, or J/R and that do not have direct correlation to those interpretations presented in those sources. Perhaps my learning more of these "interpretations" will allow me to agree that this is among a "significant group" of others. Certainly I can understand that new questions arise that need addressing (such as the advantageous non-appeal fourth out in OBR). However, I expect new releases of authoritative opinion or official interpretation to include that. Am I wrong in those expectations?
Has Carl received an "official interpretation" which he may refer to or cite regarding this running lane issue? If not, would you feel it appropriate he seek one since your position apparently is not addressed in print by our most reknowned authoritative sources? Additionally, your position says it has been this way for many years. I never realized that (and still have difficulty accepting it) and have spoken with many unaware of your position.

For you to ignore this basic concept makes me wonder what your real issue is behind this discussion.
I don't believe crashing into a fielder is considered part of the intent of the rule. Recall the JEA quote now??
There is a rule against doing it. I don't believe in circumventing a rule (particularly where safety can be an issue) merely because some people, who can provide no written authoritative support for their position, say that we need not apply the rule. I think that is a good reason for my position, don't you??? .

Just my opinion, (supported thusfar by JEA and J/R)

Freix