[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I spent the last half of my "real" career as a management consultant; I challenged the establishment; I fought the ingrained "But we've always done it this way" mentality. Because I've sat across the table from Fortune 500 CEO's, I fear no-one.

The man behind the moniker is revealed! Boy, do those two sentences explain everything!

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I will always think that Henry Pollards interpretation of an errant throw is ridiculous; it defies our common usage of the word "errant."

Given the intent of the rule, I think his interp makes tons of sense; it is the wording of the rule that has the problem. What makes no sense is for the double base to be just one big base so the defense can merely use the orange base to extend F3's stretch. Although with the 2006 change, it is getting pretty much just that. See "makes no sense."

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I want to expand it to include interfering with the throw, and the thrower.

There already are rules to cover interfering with the thrower, and with a thrown ball. The running lane rule adds one additional dimension to the interference rules for the BR, namely that she may not interfere with the catch at 1B by running outside the lane.

It seems to me that if you expand the rule as you suggest, you may as well go to an automatic out for being out of the lane. The BR will generally have her back to the fielder who is fielding the batted ball, D3K, etc. It seems to be to be a fair balance between the offense and the defense to continue to require intent if interfering with the throw.