This really happened. Your not going to believe it!

[Tim C]

Having been to pro school twice, having been to three camps run by MLU's, having attended maybe 10 NCAA camps, having umpired 33 years, having umpired through MLB inter-squad games the consideration that the runners box covering only throws from behind has been gosphel though-out my 33 seasons.


Now I too am not going to do any research further . . . the system has dictated that this call be called this way for as long as the game has been played and that is good enough for me.

I have been told this by:

Joe Brinkman, John McSherry, Nick Bermigan, Gary Darling, Dale Scott, Mike Winters, Teddy Barrett, Jon Bible, Bob Engle (when he wasn't shoplifting), Al Kaplan, Jerry Newdecker, God (i.e. Doug Harvey), Cece Carlucci, Ron Barmes, Dan Wickam, Jeff Nelson (no not the Mariner reliever), Terry Craft, Steve Palermo, Dutch Rennert, Lee Weyer.

If it good enough for them (and Rich and Garth) it is good enough for me.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB

You then ask a very logical question:

"Wouldn't one think if this is the way it is to be interpreted, that is, in direct contradiction to the written rule, that SOMEONE of recognized authoritative opinion would have put it in print???"

You know, Steve, that is my exact thought about the way the OBR talks about the base line. No where in the OBR do they discuss how a runner creates his own basepath. If you follow strictly what is in the OBR, you'd call out any runner who the defense is trying to tag and who is more than 3 feet from a direct line between bases. Wouldn't you think they'd fix that? I guess it's like the running lane, thing, eh?

Garth, that is WHY I do look to other official interpretations and authoritative opinion to address those issues that are not fully addressed in the OBR. Your basepath IS addressed there---in fact, in all three!!!
IS THAT NOT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THEIR PURPOSE?
I think so.
Only J/R somewhat specifically addresses the issue of the running lane by stating:

However, in regard to the running lane, it is not interference by a batter runner if
(a) the ball is thrown toward home plate for a play.
(b) he has each foot on or over the 45-foot lane.
(c) he has not yet reached the beginning of the lane, or has already touched or passed first base.
(d) he exits the running lane, or does not enter it, but avoids the throw and does not hinder the fielder accepting the throw. Hence, in regard to the running lane, a batter-runner cannot be guilty of interference for altering the throw of a catcher or other fielder (i.e., the fielder throws poorly, hesitates to throw, or does not throw).

Of course, J/R specificaLly addresses the exclusions to the rule. Perhaps they just FORGOT TO INCLUDE the exclusion you profess!!! I don't think "forgeting" was the reason.

Amazing the other authoritative opinions also wouldn't specifically address an EXCLUSION to the written rule. Wouldn't you agree?? I wonder why they didn't address that exclusion IF IT EXISTS??? Have they stopped their purpose here for some reason?? I would not consider contradicting a rule as being too insignificant to address, but perhaps others might.

You close with:

"We'll have to agree to disagree on this until I see written proof. Maybe the MLB umps you speak of will do it your way and by the comments mentioned. I only hope amateur umpires will realize they should have proof when asked to accept an interpretation that directly contradicts the rule. Keep in mind, there IS proof (JEA) that states the rule is there to prevent players from crashing the first baseman."

Do you provide proof of the other areas in which the rulebook does not provide clear interpretation or guidance? Do you provide proof everytime you use a practice that is not clearly spelled out in the rulebook?

Garth, I attempt to follow official interpretation and authorititative as best I can. Much of what is not fully addressed in the OBR is, indeed, further addressed elsewhere in the PBUC, JEA, or J/R. Still, questions arise regarding the more finite details. That is why Childress goes to PBUC and gets updated rulings. I would think this would qualify as it is not specifically addressed anywhere authoritative yet directly contradicts the written rule. Yet, for other reasons, I don't necessarily expect him to include this in his list.

Additionally, I will admit that in certain areas I will alter from the written book and interpretations. This is generally done for the best interest of the game at the age and talent levels I am officiating. (EXAMPLE: I don't call all the balks I see). When advantages are gained or safety is an issue, I try to enforce the rules or bypass them as best suits the situation. However, I would think that is a reason why a runner making contact with F3 SHOULD be enforced at the amateur level, regardless of where the throw originates. Players CAN control their bodies and feet on routine plays. How many players do you see running out of the running lane IN FAIR TERRITORY when they hit a grounder to the outfield and elect to round first base? I can't recall any. Seems they CAN control their bodies and feet, eh???

I don't try to emulate the Pro umps. I would not allow a pitcher to throw broken bat remnant at the batter and remain in the game---no matter who he was. Apparently, the Pro umps think differently. Yet, that illustrates why we as amateur umps should not attempt to emulate the Pro umps. It further illustrates why we need to make decisions regarding what the rules say and intend in order to best meet the needs for the level of play we officiate. That is obviously what the Pros did for Clemens. I don't think it would have been a right decision for LL. Good example???

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rich]

Any throw from the left side of the infield that pulls F3 into the runner is a poor throw. No interference.

Easy as pie. QED.

Rich

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Any throw from the left side of the infield that pulls F3 into the runner is a poor throw. No interference.

Easy as pie. QED.

Rich

I will agree with your statement, Rich, provided F3 is pulled into the legal running lane of the BR---which is not in fair territory.

However, because F3 must reach toward home on a very catchable throw from F6, yet F3 remains in contact with the base and reaches in fair territory, that does not mean BR can crash him due to no running lane requirement merely because the throw was not from home plate area. The running lane requirement still exists. The BR cannot go into fair territory to crash F3 to prevent his catch.
That IS a lane violation.

Rich, since you wish to profess to contradict the rule, is there ANYHING written you can provide us to review that would support your position??

Freix

[Rich]

Sure.

Read Tee's and Garth's answer above. It should be good enough for you. It is for me.

When the coach asks about the running lane, say that it doesn't apply to bad throws. Everyone knows that a throw that pulls F3 into the path of the BR is a bad one, regardless of whether F3 can catch it for the out.

Rich

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

When the coach asks about the running lane, say that it doesn't apply to bad throws. Everyone knows that a throw that pulls F3 into the path of the BR is a bad one, regardless of whether F3 can catch it for the out.

Rich

Can't do that, Rich. All coaches aren't that dumb, and I don't like making up excuses. When BR is running in fair territory, he is outside the running lane (per rule). A bad throw would be one pulling him into the running lane, not one allowing him to be crashed merley because an umpire will allow BR to run into him in fair territory causing F3 not to retire the runner.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Tim C]

I find your position untenable at best.

Over 100 years of baseball has extended the OBR by rulings. Nine simple rules in a $4.00 pamphlet cannot simply cover everything that can happen.

For you to "demand" written proof is a fine challenge but unnecessary.

Steve, we know that even laws in the United States can become accepted by practice and common use. So do simple baseball rules.

It is unbelieveable to me that a top-notch, well thought of umpire such as yourself can actually believe that coaches would ask for F3 to be protected by a violation of the runners lane. This time you have mystified even me.

There are literally hundreds of intrepretations (associated with all baseball rule books) that have developed by "accepted practice" over the decades.

For you to ignore this basic concept makes me wonder what your real issue is behind this discussion.

[David B]

I agree totally Rich. It's all the same thing.

I would ask Steve since the throw is bad, how is the runner supposed to reach first base (he has that right) without contacting the glove etc.,

BR is allowed to run within the running lane but to reach first base he MUST veer inside to reach the bag since the running lane is outside the bag.

I think Steve is just trying to play devil's advocate on something that just won't hold water.

I'm not even thinking about penalizing BR because of a bad throw and a bad catch. It's up to F3 to make the catch and the tag and to avoid the runner.

Thanks
David

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Sure.

Read Tee's and Garth's answer above. It should be good enough for you. It is for me.

When the coach asks about the running lane, say that it doesn't apply to bad throws. Everyone knows that a throw that pulls F3 into the path of the BR is a bad one, regardless of whether F3 can catch it for the out.

Rich

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Tim C (in black)
***answered (in blue)

Over 100 years of baseball has extended the OBR by rulings. Nine simple rules in a $4.00 pamphlet cannot simply cover everything that can happen.
That is why sources such as PBUC, NAPBL, JEA, and J/R are all cross referenced. SOMEONE should have addressed this in print. Of course, J/R really has..... and DID NOT include the position taken by you as one of their exclusions---again I ask, why not?? J/R specifically DOES NOT support your position, therefore, you are ready to discount their well acknowledged writings. No other authoritative source lists your exclusion to the written rule despite their detailed discussions of the specific rule. Again I ask, don't you think they would consider something that CONTRADICTS the written rule as worthwhile to addresss??? Please address these questions.

For you to "demand" written proof is a fine challenge but unnecessary.
Your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the rulebook and also contradicts the other information I can locate within other authoritative sources which I have presented (JEA and J/R). Why would you think it unnecessary for ANYONE to say, "Where has any authoritative source put that interpretation in print?" That is not wrong to ask.
What IS wrong is when someone cannot produce the written support of what they profess . I have provided such support, you have not. That is where you, Rich, Garth, and others currently stand---unable to produce any written proof of what you profess. IMO, what is worse yet, however, is for someone to practice on the field a contradiction to the rule until that contradiction can be authoritatively supported.

Steve, we know that even laws in the United States can become accepted by practice and common use. So do simple baseball rules.
and when done so, they are incorporated as law (or rule) or at the very least, discussed by authoritative sources. Although I have respect for those I am discussing this rule with, these posts do not constitute authoritative opinion. Nor should hearsay statements regarding Pro School teachings. Present the literature dispersed by those schools. I could accept that (at least for the Pro level). I have yet to see THAT or ANYTHING in writing other than comments of people's opinions. That does not mean I do not respect those opinions, but until proven accurate I should not accept those opinions.

It is unbelieveable to me that a top-notch, well thought of umpire such as yourself can actually believe that coaches would ask for F3 to be protected by a violation of the runners lane. This time you have mystified even me.
Why? The throw, although off toward home plate yet over fair territory, is very catchable and able to retire the BR if the BR is in the lane described by the rule. This IS NOT a bad throw if it can retire the BR provided F3 is not interfered with. The person throwing has done what needed to be done. The rules say the BR should be in his lane and not out in fair territory crashing the fielder. JEA states that, indeed, is one of the PURPOSES of the rule, correct??? Therefore, why should the BR be allowed to crash F3 simply because the throw did not originate from the home plate area. Tee, to me, THAT is not logical.

There are literally hundreds of intrepretations (associated with all baseball rule books) that have developed by "accepted practice" over the decades.
Please tell me more of these that are not addressed anywhere in PBUC, JEA, or J/R and that do not have direct correlation to those interpretations presented in those sources. Perhaps my learning more of these "interpretations" will allow me to agree that this is among a "significant group" of others. Certainly I can understand that new questions arise that need addressing (such as the advantageous non-appeal fourth out in OBR). However, I expect new releases of authoritative opinion or official interpretation to include that. Am I wrong in those expectations?
Has Carl received an "official interpretation" which he may refer to or cite regarding this running lane issue? If not, would you feel it appropriate he seek one since your position apparently is not addressed in print by our most reknowned authoritative sources? Additionally, your position says it has been this way for many years. I never realized that (and still have difficulty accepting it) and have spoken with many unaware of your position.

For you to ignore this basic concept makes me wonder what your real issue is behind this discussion.
I don't believe crashing into a fielder is considered part of the intent of the rule. Recall the JEA quote now??
There is a rule against doing it. I don't believe in circumventing a rule (particularly where safety can be an issue) merely because some people, who can provide no written authoritative support for their position, say that we need not apply the rule. I think that is a good reason for my position, don't you??? .

Just my opinion, (supported thusfar by JEA and J/R)

Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by David B

I would ask Steve since the throw is bad,........

David, I can't respond to a question which is based upon an incorrect premise. I am not discussing plays where the throw is bad. I am discussing plays where the throw, not perfect, is good enough to be easily gloved by F3 while in contact with the base. Yet, the throw is in the air over fair territory on the home base side of first base---perhaps 5-8ft toward home.

Freix

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair

Can't do that, Rich. All coaches aren't that dumb, and I don't like making up excuses. When BR is running in fair territory, he is outside the running lane (per rule). A bad throw would be one pulling him into the running lane, not one allowing him to be crashed merley because an umpire will allow BR to run into him in fair territory causing F3 not to retire the runner.

Just my opinion,

Freix

I'm surprised you don't just ask the coach whether he wants the penalty enforced.

Steve:
If the ball is coming from the left side of the infield and the ball takes F3 to the home side of the bag I wouldn't have a running lane violation. I might have a straight interference call or nothing. The running lane has nothing to do with it. It's an accepted pratice that the running lane is for plays coming from behind. I'm not sure why all the guys that have responded in this thread and the other one that you argued with Carl for so long feel that it's accepted practice and you're the lone voice thinking different.
It seems such a no brainer call I don't see why you feel the need to complicate it so. My impression was in the earlier thread you dug in simply because Carl said the opposite. This may be totally wrong but it appears to be your style.

[Bfair]

How is this handled at the Fed level????????

Do you use your OBR interpretation for HS games run under Fed rules? Not to say that is wrong, certainly there is concept of analogy, and since Fed also has not published anything excluding throws from other areas except home plate, I thought you may also be applying your exclusion there also.

Any comments on how you handle Fed ruled games????
Obviously, I have no problems applying my interpretation equally the same.

Freix

[Carl Childress]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.

Truly a rather arrogant and egotistical view to think I am here only to tweak your twiddle, Childress---but not surprising. I would hope even you would agree that I have provided legitimate support and logic to back my position while receiving far less evidence in rebuttal. At the very least, I fuel a legitimate topic for discussion and learning. Is that not a part of what the forums are here for?

Unfortunately for me, I DO consider you among the best regarding rules knowledge and have always tried to provide you that credit, correct?? I also have not found you to be flawless. I congratulate you on the sales of your writings but must add that it should be mentioned that the JEA is not for sale to the general public. I might suspect that Chevrolets outsell Mercedes but, of course, there is a reason for that. Sales figures, alone, CAN be misleading. I am a proud owner of your BRD and have even plugged it for you elsewhere due to it's value to umpires. Consider this an addtional plug. It's win-win for the buyer and the seller and an excellen reference for those umpiring games using the various sets of rules. It should be included among your earliest purchases available to you for your reference library.

I am not concerned in building any reputation as you inaccurately stated. Far more importantly, I am concerned in officiating the game fairly and as safely as possible by the rules as I feel, through my experience and continued learnings, the game was intended to be played. As stated before, I have no desire to be another Childress; one is certainly enough for me.

I would, however, like to thank you for interjecting your post. Your knowledge and opinions are highly regarded (or should be) by most. I would like to ask if you would consider answering the questions I posed regarding the (other?) authoritative opinions and PBUC in their lack of coverage regarding this claimed exclusion to the written rule. After all, yours is the ONLY one specifically addressing it, and it is my understanding that these other sources are prime references for the content of the BRD. Therefore, the summation you quote appears to be YOUR opinion rather than theirs. That totals the overwhelming number of "one".

1) Why do you feel it is not specifically listed anywhere, other than your writings, among the major publications of JEA, J/R, and PBUC?? (In fact, J/R does not include it among their listed exclusions, which therefore, would contradict your opinion). None mention in any words to "exclude" those plays not originating from the home plate area.

2)Would not any interpretation that directly contradicts the written rule warrant specific attention rather than "acceptance through deductive process" or "common usage"??? If so, it leads back to the question of why have others not more specifically addressed it if it were true.

3) Since it is NOT specifically addressed, would it warrant you seeking a specific ruling if, indeed, it is accepted as broadly as you indicate?? Would not such a ruling aid to legitimatize the claim in YOUR writings?? (My personal questioning of umpires, BTW, does not show that this point is widely known or practiced as you profess). Consider the play I use for the example which is based on a good throw (as defined by JEA) on the home plate side of first base over fair territory. Why should the BR be allowed to come out of the lane and into fair territory to contact a fielder and prevent the gloving of the throw??

4) How is this addressed for Fed interpretions??? Is it the same as you claim for OBR??

I would appreciate your attention to these questions if only to provide you further opportunity to make me look even worse than you already feel I have attained without your assistance.

Thank you,

Freix