Tim:
Someone keeps asking about written proof from a
recognized expert. Here it is, excerpted by permission of the author (That's I) from the second-best selling baseball book for umpires in the 1980s:
The running lane. You know what that is; it's the lane they never mark with chalk on your field. But if they did draw it, it would begin 45 feet from home plate, extend three feet into foul ground and run up to the front edge of first base extended.
- Reason for the rule: Protection of the defense. When a batter-runner (BR) is trying for first, the books all say he must be in that lane for the last half of the distance to the base. If he is not AND he impedes in any way a fielder while the ball is being fielded to first, he is out for interference and runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. The rules also detail an exception: The BR may (indeed, he must) run to the left (fair territory) or the right (foul ground) of the lane if it's to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play on the batted ball.
- When the lane is important. Let's get this point clear: What I'm about to say is not in any rulebook, but it's a "rule provision" nonetheless, because it has been codified via the decisions of thousands of umpires in tens of thousands of games played all over the world. The running lane should enter an umpire's decision-making process only when the ball is being fielded to first from behind the runner. For example, when the third baseman throws off line to first and the first baseman goes for the ball, if contact occurs don't look down to see where the BR's feet are; if you do, you're on your way to blowing the call. The intent of the rule is to keep the BR from screening the fielder behind him from the first baseman in front. Keep it that way in your games and you'll never get into trouble.
Referee Enterprises, Inc., published
The Umpire's Answer Book by Carl Childress in 1988.
Tim: In nearly 50 years of baseball only two people have continued to argue this point. Each of them adopts the contrary approach because, as Mike suggested, each wants to make a reputation for himself as the man who tweaked my nose. You'd think they would pick one of the (many) subjects (like mechanics?) where I'm wrong. (LOL!)
BTW1: The other guy posts on RSO and is best friends with their "By the Rules" columnist. That should explain a lot.
BTW2: The first-best selling book for umpires in the 1980s was Behind the Mask. Uh, I wrote that one, too.