Anybody notice anything interesting about the Boston/Baltimore game on ESPN 2 Sunday Night?

No I did not see the game, what happned?

I liked the jacket on the PU and the plate coats on the base umpires.

Other than Pedro getting strike calls on pitches 6" off the plate?

Other than the fact that the birds seemed to kick Pedro's butt!!

I also like the black jacket with white rings... Thinking of ordering one (I need a new game jacket anyway, honest, dear!!)

I saw the highlights of the game. I really liked the look of the base umpires. Sharp look.

Or
 

ô¡ô

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2004 at 09:32 AM]

I was just referring to the coats on the base umpires...that took me back a bit

Re: Or
 

Of the little bit I saw... Top of eighth to maybe top of ninth.... I did catch...

"Foul Tip" on an uncaught ball, landed at the catcher's feet..

Re: Or
 

That's one of the statements Joe got right. See my series of articles at Officiating.com. http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3546

Exactly Carl,
 

ô¡ô

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2004 at 09:33 AM]

So what about: <i>The 2004 BRD</i> OFF INTERP 176-272 FITZPATRICK: (3) "The throw need not come from behind."

Rich: As I pointed out in the 2003 edition of the BRD: <font color=blue> Of all the interpretations I've received down through the years from Mike Fitzpatrick, [this] OFF INTERP [176-272] surprised me the most. (1) I have never seen running lane interference called other than when the throw came from behind the batter-runner, screening the fielder at first. (2) It is difficult for me to understand how a runner safe on the base can be guilty of interference for being out of the lane: He doesn't have to be in the lane if he's on the base. </p> But though I don't agree [with] Fitzpatrick's ruling, it is official; it is how I will treach the running lane in my clinics. An abiding precept -- and one I've always umpired by -- is: A single officials interpretations is worth any number of authoritative opinions.</font></p>What I'm trying to say is: Joe Morgan is right, Mike Fitzpatrick is wrong. Still, the BRD accepts his word as The Law. Ah, well, you know what I'm saying....

are you talking about the new pullovers with the delta blue/white stripes over the shoulders? if so, good luck finding one. they are nowhere.

The base umpires did not have on the pullover jackets. They had on "plate coats". Its been a while since I've seen them on the bases.

I will wear mine on the bases when it's cold enough. Last Saturday qualified -- it was 35 degrees on the field with a pretty gusty wind.

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.

Help, I need somebody!!!
 

Please read this thread guys . . . it talks about the runners lane.

Tee

A throw from behind the runner is not the only way he can violate the runners lane rule. That's not my opinion, it came from the MLB umps. I consider that an official interpretation.

Well, let's have a sample play to that effect, explaining another "way" the B-R can interfere. Give the source of the interpretation; that is, the names of the "MLB umps" making it and the place of publication. I'd like to add it to the 2005 BRD, you understand.

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

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."

Your reply reminds me of the old saying: "If your client is innocent, argue the facts. If your client is guilty, obfuscate."

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:

<font color=purple><bold>The concept of the running lane came into the rules in 1882. Evans says: "The only difference in that layout and today’s is that the foul line connected the point of home plate with the center of first base; therefore, part of the runner’s lane encompassed part of the base." (JEA 6:31)

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 runner’s 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 fielder’s hand. That’s 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 he’s in fair territory and you call him out when he interferes with F3 taking the throw: "He wasn’t 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? Shouldn’t he be stretching toward the weak throw? If he’s 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.</font></bold>

In other words, neither the <i>original lane</i> or the <i>redrawn lane</i> 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 -- <b>on a throw from behind</b>.

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]

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

Rich - I agree with the 5 feet over the head being uncatchable, and thus not interference, but FED wants this called interference this year, with Interp #20.

[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 -- <b>on a throw from behind</b>.

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?

How does this jibe with interpretation #19?

I would NEVER call this, regardless of how "FED" wants it called.

I won't call that one either
 

Maybe its the quality of ball where I live, but I would never consider calling interference on a bad throw.

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

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.

I give up!
 

What's the saying, you can lead a horse to water...

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

Unfortunately for your position, the OBR rule book cares not a whit about common sense/fair play since it unwaveringly favors the team on offense. But that aside...

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 <i>moment</i> to make his throw to prevent a stolen base. In the <i>close quarters</i> 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?

Unfortunately for your position, the OBR rule book cares not a whit about common sense/fair play since it unwaveringly favors the team on offense.
-----------
Well, unfortunately for my position, my comments on the 5' high throw were based on FED interpreting that it is runners lane violation if the act of running out of lane is what caused the throw to be high. It appears that they are following the reasoning of the example I referenced about the steal. I do realize, even though the rule book lawyers here have failed point out the obvious, that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." If the FED governs the h.s. level of play and the Fed wants to consider the high throw over the head to be called int, how do you overlook that? I do believe, based on OBR(and Jimmie's Doctrine", that there has to be a "quality throw" if the runner interferes with it outside of the lane. I also believe that inside the lane it pretty much has to be intentional.
--------------
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.
--------------
Agreed. See above. Time and distance? It's not basketball time and we are a long distance from it.
--------------
The catcher has but a <i>moment</i> to make his throw to prevent a stolen base. In the <i>close quarters</i> 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."
--------------
Again, Agreed.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Re: I give up!
 

For your infinite wisdom and desire not to throw darts, I applaud you.

What's the saying, I'd rather be lucky...

[/B][/QUOTE]First of all, you <i>never</i> mentioned you were discussing FED. All your claims of authority were from anecdotal material from major league umpires. I assure you, from long acquaintance with them, they don't know -- or care -- diddley squat about NFHS rules.

Second, there is NO rules difference between a throw to second and a throw to first. They are BOTH throws. If someone argues that the throw to first comes after a batted ball: Remember, if the catcher does not catch a third strike in flight, the batter becomes a batter-runner and may, under certain circumstances, try for first. Both are throws, don't you see? One is governed by the batter's box; the other, by the running lane.

I assure you, the reason the "rule book lawyers," i.e., the umpires who know the rules, didn't mention a difference between the two throws is simple. There ain't none!

BTW: The mention of basketball was simply to explain what time and distance meant, in a baseball sense. I should have known better.

In situation 19, BR was not in the running lane, but was in foul territory. Catcher in fair territory hit BR in the back. I call em like FED interprets, when doing FED games. You do what you want...

I always do.

It shows.

[/B][/QUOTE]First of all, you <i>never</i> mentioned you were discussing FED. All your claims of authority were from anecdotal material from major league umpires. I assure you, from long acquaintance with them, they don't know -- or care -- diddley squat about NFHS rules.

Second, there is NO rules difference between a throw to second and a throw to first. They are BOTH throws. If someone argues that the throw to first comes after a batted ball: Remember, if the catcher does not catch a third strike in flight, the batter becomes a batter-runner and may, under certain circumstances, try for first. Both are throws, don't you see? One is governed by the batter's box; the other, by the running lane.

I assure you, the reason the "rule book lawyers," i.e., the umpires who know the rules, didn't mention a difference between the two throws is simple. There ain't none!

BTW: The mention of basketball was simply to explain what time and distance meant, in a baseball sense. I should have known better. [/B][/QUOTE]

This thread has jumped all over the place so forgive me for not dotting the i's. And by the way most honorable barrister, I think we all realize they are both throws. What's your point with your example? I was comparing throws to first from behind the runner(regardless of how it happens) v/s an attempt to retire a runner at a base(ie: batter's int. on an attempted pickoff). Had a brain lapse, agreed with you, and attempted to note the difference

I assure You that there is a huge difference between the two situations, if you haven't read the post. It says "that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff. You of all people should be able to see that.

I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. Again, you should know that. Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. Since you didn't recognize, I was just having a little fun with the basketball comment earlier. If it looks like a joke, sounds like a joke, smells like a joke, it must be... Maybe the passengers on the short bus don't understand. No need to get all wound up about it.

BTW, what's up with this comment: "Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters." You must not have read this from TEE "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." What's wrong with addressing a reasonable question with a reasonable answer? Is that not an important part of officiating? Maybe I can answer that myself rom this comment: "We're not interested in how to explain interference to a base coach. We don't make explanations; we make calls!" Thanks partner!

Lastly, why are you busting balls? I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here but, unlike you perhaps, some here are trying to learn or at least have a discussion, don't you see?

Waiving the white flag. :)

The only time I have ever called interference by the BR in running inside the line to 1B was when throw from the catcher hit the BR (ie throw from behind the runner). Since Fed made Interp 20, I have not had an occassion in a Fed game to call interference for a throw from the catcher over the 1B head. But if it happens in a Fed game I will call it because that's the Interp.

My comments are enclosed in brackets:
[bold][quote]I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. [Not so: There are no rule citations for this elusive, actually non-existent thing call CS/FP.]

Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. [How is this comment related to CS/FP?] If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. [I have no idea what this sentence means.] Again, you should know that.

Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. [Yes, it is: I just published it. Your comment was there is no difference between batter interference and runner interference if the interference "causes" a bad throw. I demonstrated there is a difference in how interference is judged, and it's because of the short time and close proximity at the plate that makes that huge difference. There's NO differece in the penalty; my comments was simply to help you learn how to distinguish between the two.]

Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. [I have no idea what this referes to.]

My comments: 1. Trust me: There is NO distinction in baseball relevant to the destination of a throw. The ball is delivered in two ways only: pitch and throw. Interference with a throw must be intentional to be penalized. A runner not in the lane -- and interfering -- is deemed to be interfering intentionally. A batter not in the box and interfering is also ruled intentional. My additional comments are enclosed in brackets:

"I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself [I said nothing of the sort.] and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. [irrelevant] The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff [irrelevant: What constitutes interference is the same everywhere. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here.] You of all people should be able to see that. [I "of all people" assure you that you need a refresher course in interference -- even if we are on the same page -- which I also don't see.

2. I haven't detected any humor anywhere in an earlier post. I put to any objective reader: Your reference to basketball had no element of humor in it. I believe, therefore, you are dissembling in this post.

Rich:

It doesn't pay to argue with idiots.

Soon you will be down to their level.

Rich, you work ball at a much higher level than some . . . give it a rest and let the Little League guys work their games.

After all, you'll pass them when play-off time comes.

:-)

Tee

I don't think this is a LL question. It all started with a post about a major league game. Don't come in the bottom of the 9th, this is not a save opportunity :-)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
My comments are enclosed in brackets:
[bold]

Quote:

I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. [Not so: There are no rule citations for this elusive, actually non-existent thing call CS/FP.] ------------ I never said it was a rule. It is a tool. Do I really need to explain that? -------------- Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. [How is this comment related to CS/FP?] If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. [I have no idea what this sentence means.] Again, you should know that. -------------- Are you saying if you stumble upon a situation in a game that is not clearly or specifically covered by the rules you'll say "Sorry, no published interpretation on that on so lets do over?" -------------- Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. [Yes, it is: I just published it. Your comment was there is no difference between batter interference and runner interference if the interference "causes" a bad throw. I demonstrated there is a difference in how interference is judged, and it's because of the short time and close proximity at the plate that makes that huge difference. There's NO differece in the penalty; my comments was simply to help you learn how to distinguish between the two.] ---------------- Sorry, didn't realize you were an authority on the rules committee. So you don't agree that a huge difference is that one is actually interfering with the ball "in flight" and the other can be interference with the attempt prior to the release? I think that is a key difference between the two. ---------------- Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. [I have no idea what this referes to.] ---------------- I mention a tool to use for baseball and you mention a tool for baseball. Yet you want citations for what I mention. BTW, if you read the OBR Annotated by JE you will probably find it published there. ---------------- My comments: 1. Trust me: There is NO distinction in baseball relevant to the destination of a throw. The ball is delivered in two ways only: pitch and throw. Interference with a throw must be intentional to be penalized. A runner not in the lane -- and interfering -- is deemed to be interfering intentionally. A batter not in the box and interfering is also ruled intentional. My additional comments are enclosed in brackets: "I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself [I said nothing of the sort.] and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. [irrelevant] The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff [irrelevant: What constitutes interference is the same everywhere. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here.] You of all people should be able to see that. [I "of all people" assure you that you need a refresher course in interference -- even if we are on the same page which I also don't see. ------------------------- You didn't say there is a difference between the throw being 5' over the head in the runners lane situation v/s the batters interence situation where the ball is 5' over the head??? Better check yourself there professor. Again, the act of being outside of the batters box and interfering with the "act of throwing" on a pickoff is somewhat different than interfering with a ball "in flight" on the running lane play to first. I think we've all agreed that there has to be a quality throw on the play at first in which the BR interferes with while the ball is in flight. The other does not have to be a quality throw because the act of the interference could be what caused the ball to go into centerfield. Is that not clear? Are we not on the same page there? Yes, I'd say a lot of people need a refresher on interference as well as instructing. Hopefully the instructor will be as good of a listener as he is a talker. That may help everyone in attendence to clearly understand where he is coming from. -------------------------- 2. I haven't detected any humor anywhere in an earlier post. I put to any objective reader: Your reference to basketball had no element of humor in it. I believe, therefore, you are dissembling in this post.

--------------------------
Yea, Okay. What's the saying about opinions?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MPC

Quote:

Yea, Okay. What's the saying about opinions?

Here's something you wrote: "Sorry, didn't realize you were an authority on the rules committee. So you don't agree that a huge difference is that one is actually interfering with the ball "in flight" and the other can be interference with the attempt prior to the release? I think that is a key difference between the two."

Read my lips: As far as the rules go, there is NO DIFFERENCE. The destination of a throw matters only if it's an attempt to complete a double play. The reason for the throw never enters into an umpire's consideration, regardless of what you think.

I'd be adjectly apologetic if you can point me to a citation in any rule book where the text makes a distinction between interference with a ball "in flight" and interference with the "attempt" to throw.

So far all we have for evidence is your repeated assertion that the difference exists.

No, I'm not on a rules committee. Neither is Evans. Neither is Roder. We all three have published books about the rules. A rules authority is someone who knows them. <i>Verdad?</i>

No difference in what??? As far as the rules go, there is a difference between a batter/runner's interference in regards to the running lane and a batter's interference with a catchers attempt to make a play. If there were no difference, there would not be two separate rules to distinguish the two. Can we agree on that???

Play one is the runners lane situation where BR interferes with a throw.6.05k

Play two is the Batters int with the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.6.06c

Lets break this down:

It was brought up about the 5' throw over the head of F1 (or any D at first base) which could be caused by BR running outside the line

<<<ie:OBR 6.05(k) A batter is out when- In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of)the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in doing so interferes with the fielder taking the THROW (((((Note My emphasis because it is a throw not an attempt. Throw meaning it has been thrown or is in flight, not in hand, glove, pocket, ball bag, etc. Released from origin and not arrived at destination. Is there a better way to explain what I mean by in flight?))))); except that he may run outside(to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;>>>

It was said that the play one throw is nothing because it has to be a quality throw. I AGREE. Then it moved to the FED interpretation of #19 or 20. I compared THAT issue to the fact that it is similar to a catcher attempting to retire a runner at ANY base on a pick off.(ie: OBR 6.06(c) see below) I was told by you and others that there is a big difference which I acknowledged and gave an additional example why there is a big difference. I made the point that one major difference between the two plays is that one is int with a thrown ball and the other is with an attempt to make a play on a runner. Your point, as I took it, was that the first play(runners lane play) required a quality throw and the second play didn't. My point is the reason why the second play doesn't require a quality throw is that the interference with the attempt could be the reason why the throw is not quality. Hence, the interference occured with the attempt to throw and not the actual throw (as discussed above plus -OBR 2.00: A throw is the act of propelling the ball with the hand and arm to a given objective and is to be distinguished, always, from the pitch.)


OBR: 6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when - He intefreres with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.

In addition: NCAA NOTE 2: to 6-2-d: If, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher has possession of teh ball and is in the act of throwing or preparing to throw and the batter interferes with the catcher, the batter then shall be declared out (Profided the throw does not retire the runner). ADD Jimmy's verbal classroom note: There MUST be a Throw. Throwing or Preparing means throw is eminant. It says preparing to throw which means a throw is happening. Does not mean catcher is preparing NOT to throw. There is no guarantee that C is attempting to throw so the throw must happen. I know the verbal note may not be admissable in your court but I thought I'd throw it in for those guys who are interested in a little extra information.

So, I read this(in regards to the second play) as interfering with the attempt to retire a runner on a pickoff or the act of throwing the ball. Thus, the ball is not in the air yet. Everyone realizes that if B1 interferes with the ball in the air (second play) while he is out of the box or made a motion while in the box to cause the throw to hit him, it is certainly interference. That is the same as the first play where the throw was interfered with while in flight. Is that what you mean by there is no difference?

Now, is this enough evidence for you to see that there is
a distinction in the a RULE BOOK (OBR) between interference with a ball that is in flight(play one 6.05k) and interference with an attempt to throw or make a play (play two 6.06c)?

If so, can you point me to a citation in any dictionary to the word adjectly? I'm just an umpire and don't know those big words.

Thanks for your help.

BTW:I hope you didn't intend to describe yourself as Verdant. Verdad is another big word for me.