|
Wed Apr 07, 2004, 09:55am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course, on those days you put on anything that you think will help. UnderArmour, Jacket, sweatshirts, plate coat, kitchen sink.... Back in the day umpires probably had different sportcoats for base work and plate work. I doubt that's the case now -- these are just plate coats worn for warmth with layers underneath. 
|
|
Sun May 02, 2004, 10:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 08:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
MPC
Major League umpires do not make official interpretations of the rules. They get the interpretations from the "Red Book" (which, I think, has a blue cover this season) which is given out at the start of spring training.
Not to copy Carl, I would also like the names of the umpires you consulted with so I can see if they are the same ones I talked with when this issue first came up. In Bfair's posting he contended that a throw from F6 that was "almost" on line and took F3 into the first base line was also covered under the runners lane rule. Is this the type issue that you are talking about? I would like to get this issue closed up once and for all. Can you help me? Tee
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 09:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't have any books with me at work so I'll work from memory. Source was Harry's in 94 and Jims in 96. I can reference all of the pros there from bottom to top but I'll leave it at the classroom instructors of Paul Nauert/Mark Barron and Jim Evans. There were plenty more to reinforce the rulebook explanations during drills. One form of reasoning behind why it can happen and why we look for it outside of a throw from behind the runner is the fact that we are to move up the line behind the BR to insure he is within the lane. Otherwise, we could just camp out behind the plate and let the BU handle it all since the ball is being fielded from a position other than behind the runner.
As an example, we can use that throw from F6 that brings F1 down the line toward home into the runners lane. Now, we know that BR can still interfere within the runners lane but he is protected to some extent. So if F1 comes into the lane and contact is unavoidable, BR is protected. If BR established his line in some crazy position and ends up outside the lane and makes unavoidable contact in the last 45', he has violated the runners lane rule. You might hang your hat on normal interference but you'll probably be in a pickle with the base coach when you could just explain that he not only intefered, he was out of the runners lane when he did so. "You know that rule coach, he has to be in the lane the last 45' to be protected."
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 10:18am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters. We're not interested in how to explain interference to a base coach. We don't make explanations; we make calls! We also know that Mr. Evans says interference cannot be called on the batter-runner unless the fielder makes a quality throw to first base: "If a throw which has no realistic chance of retiring the batter-runner is made, the batter-runner shall not be declared out for interference (lane violation) if he is hit by the throw or the fielder cannot make the catch." (That's not an alleged anecdotal statement; it's from page 7:94 in the JEA.) Of course, no acknowledged rules interpreter has ever published a play where the throw did not come from behind the batter-runner. But that aside, the example you give of the throw from F6 pulling the first baseman from the bag is obviously covered under the "quality throw" doctrine. Back last year David Emerling posed a question about the running lane, and I wrote a six-part article explaining it. Here, from December 31, 2003, is the key: Couple that fact with Evans opinion: "An allowance should be made for the batter-runner to step inside the foul line as he reaches the immediate vicinity of first base; otherwise, the base is not readily accessible for him to touch since the runners lane runs adjacent and past the base in foul territory." (JEA 6:32) In 1882 a runner in the lane could run straight through the bag. In 2002 he has to veer into the base, and Evans says that you must cut him slack for that one last step for mankind, uh, the Yankees, who are mankind at my house. Quiz Question: B1 rolls slowly to the shortstop, who gloves the ball and makes a weak, off-balance throw to first. B1 is now just one step from the bag. He is (a) legally in the lane, or (b) illegally in fair territory. In (a) he veers to his left and crashes the fielder. In (b) he veers to his right and crashes the fielder. In both cases F3 drops the ball. The point is this: The runner wants to knock the ball out of the fielders hand. Thats why Evans uses the word "intentionally." Under OBR rules you can't call a runner out for interfering with a throw unless the interference is "willful and deliberate." That being so, the $64,000 dollar question is: Exactly how does the running lane keep the batter-runner from crashing into the fielder? Ok, so hes in fair territory and you call him out when he interferes with F3 taking the throw: "He wasnt in the lane," you explain. "He intentionally crashed into the fielder." Well, being a smart guy, the next time he will run inside the lane. When he crashes the fielder, preventing the catch, you will call what? You can't get away with: "He's out because he was in the lane." Finally, what is the fielder doing on the base anyway? Shouldnt he be stretching toward the weak throw? If hes doing his job, there's nothing for the runner to crash into. On the other hand, if the throw from F6 drew him away from his ideal position, then the bad throw absolves the runner from interference in or out of the lane. In other words, neither the original lane or the redrawn lane prevents the batter-runner from crashing the fielder. Ergo, the only possible reason the rulesmakers could have had for keeping it was to prevent the batter-runner from screening the fielder -- on a throw from behind. Sorry, but your "example" had already been discussed -- and dismissed -- at great length on Officiating.com. BTW: You can read the entire series at http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3549 [Edited by Carl Childress on May 3rd, 2004 at 11:26 AM]
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 11:02am
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's also instructive to see the reactions of players and coaches at higher levels of play.
Yesterday I was working a college DH -- ground ball to F6, throw good enough to retire the BR, but pulls F3 into the baseline. Crash. Ball ends up in right field. I simply won't even consider the running lane -- the throw wasn't from the box -- even though the BR was running inside all the way down. Not a word from anyone. Nobody. Not on the crash, nothing. Manager came out, but only to change pitchers. Later in the game, there was a sacrifice bunt and F2 threw the ball over F3's head into right field. Again, the BR was not in the running lane, but it wasn't a quality throw. No interference. To have interference, the runner must interfere with something and a throw 5 feet over everyone's head is uncatchable even with NO runner there. With better baseball you don't get arguments from inside the fence on stuff like this. You get arguments, of course, but on different things. --Rich
|
|
Tue May 04, 2004, 02:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters. Neither am I! So, I'll go with the next best thing and hang my hat on what a professional instructor teaches. Without clear cut explanations by the rules committee, how could one go wrong? Exactly how does the running lane keep the batter-runner from crashing into the fielder? As was said before, sometimes you have to use common sense and fair play. If one has any judgement at all he/shecan certainly reason that one out. You can't get away with: "He's out because he was in the lane." Don't know where you are coming from or going on that one. I certainly believe that there can be interference in the lane as well as outside the lane. Ergo, the only possible reason the rulesmakers could have had for keeping it was to prevent the batter-runner from screening the fielder -- on a throw from behind. Yes, and you have that written and published documentation of that interpretation from the rulesmakers readily available but I cannot find those citations here. Sorry, but your "example" had already been discussed -- and dismissed -- at great length on Officiating.com. And I wonder why those people with professional aspirations spend all of that money when they can spend a few minutes and find the good stuff right here?
|
|
Tue May 04, 2004, 02:47pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I would NEVER call this, regardless of how "FED" wants it called.
|
|
Tue May 04, 2004, 03:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I won't call that one either
Quote:
Now if F2 makes a quality throw which hits the runner (which would be the way the catcher's around here would have been taught - hit him in the back of the head), then we will consider interference. Don't bail out F2 on his inability to pick up the ball and throw it to F3. Thanks DAvid
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 07:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
F2 has the opportunity to throw the ball inside or out so that supports the 5' over the head theory. However, if the throw is 5' over the head because BR has the throwing lane blocked, int. should be called. I know there aren't any Fed umpires who would incourage an F2 to plug BR in the head because that would be against all safety and sportsmanship rules. That would appear as though those umpires were picking which rules they intend to enforce.
For those guys who will absolutely not call int on the high throw in the example, how would you handle a batters int with a catchers throw to retire R1 at 2nd base when the ball end up 5' over the fielders head and in center field? Example: R1 to 2nd, B1 swings on the pitch and his mo carries him in front of the plate. F2 comes up to throw and B1 is in front of him causing his release to be high and results in the ball ending up in center. Same basic theory. B1/BR is blocking throwing lane Illegally so I don't see how int can't be called given that the offensive actually is the direct cause of the misfire. Looks like another good example of common sense/fair play.
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 10:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I give up!
Quote:
This is not even close to the same thing, compare apples to apples. And I won't even go down the common sense thing... Good luck, you're going to need it. Thanks David
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There's simply no connection between a batter interfering and causing a throw into centerfield during a steal, and the batter-runner not in the lane when the catcher launches one into right field. As is basketball, it's a matter of time and distance. The catcher has but a moment to make his throw to prevent a stolen base. In the close quarters at the plate, when the batter is out of the box, even "obstructing the catcher's vision may be interference." (Evans) But the running lane doesn't operate for the first 45 feet. Let's say it takes a speedy runner three to four seconds to reach first. The catcher has ample time and plenty of room to make a quality throw. When he sails the ball into right field -- even with a runner not in the lane! -- it simply cannot be, to use your word, "int." BTW: I posted this message this morning around 8:00, but "previewed" it instead of "submitting" it. Anybody else done that?
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
