R/i

[LRZ]

So you say. But if FED does not require a quality throw, what does it matter that the throw was "errant"? Could the first baseman have had a play on catching the ball? The BR is in foul territory yet not in the running lane. If he's not in the running lane and if he were hit by the throw and that prevented the first baseman from catching the ball, how is that not a RLV?

Was the BR in the running lane? No.
Was the throw "errant"? Yes.
Is a quality throw required in FED? No.
Did the BR interfere with the fielder receiving the throw? Yes.

In FED terms,
Was the BR outside the three-foot running lane? Yes
Was he doing so while the ball was being fielded or thrown to first base? Yes.

It is an official ruling, but perfectly rational? Either facts are left out or are unclear--what exactly does "errant" mean here? how far off base?--or the ruling itself is not supported by the rule itself.

But I'm open to the suggestion that I'm missing something. If I am, please point it out--a conclusory statement does not show me my error.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by LRZ

So you say. But if FED does not require a quality throw, what does it matter that the throw was "errant"? Could the first baseman have had a play on catching the ball? The BR is in foul territory yet not in the running lane. If he's not in the running lane and if he were hit by the throw and that prevented the first baseman from catching the ball, how is that not a RLV?
.

If the throw went 90 degrees off target and toward the stands would you excuse that? There comes a point where it's the thrower's fault.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by LRZ

So you say. But if FED does not require a quality throw, what does it matter that the throw was "errant"? Could the first baseman have had a play on catching the ball? The BR is in foul territory yet not in the running lane. If he's not in the running lane and if he were hit by the throw and that prevented the first baseman from catching the ball, how is that not a RLV?
.

If the throw went 90 degrees off target and toward the stands would you excuse that?

F2 had a clear lane to throw.

There comes a point where it's the thrower's fault.

[LRZ]

Sure, but that's a judgment ("at some point"), based on specific facts. But the case play omits them: how "errant" was the throw, where was the BR when hit, where was the first baseman, did he have a chance to catch the throw? All relevant questions about the facts.

Moreover, as I said earlier, why use the term "errant" without more specifics, if a quality throw is not necessary?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Sure, but that's a judgment ("at some point"), based on specific facts. But the case play omits them: how "errant" was the throw, where was the BR when hit, where was the first baseman, did he have a chance to catch the throw? All relevant questions about the facts.

Moreover, as I said earlier, why use the term "errant" without more specifics, if a quality throw is not necessary?

A "quality throw" is not necessary when the runner is between F2 (usually) and F3. FED doesn't want to encourage F2 to plunk the BR, and doesn't want the umpire to have to judge whether F2 erred or threw wiled in an attempt to not hit the BR.

When BR is NOT between F2 and F3 (i.e., one is in fair territory and one is in foul territory), just treat it like a regular play.

FED has taken (most of) the judgment out of this.