This really happened. Your not going to believe it!

[Tim C]

It is not worth effort to argue with you.

You are simply wrong and won't accept that. I respect your rights . . . even the right to be incorrect.

Hold out the fort man, you're the only one left.

Tee

[joemoore]

Short answer. If it was intentional interference on the runner, then R3 is out (intentionally interfering with a double play). If it is not intentional interference then R3 gets home.

Intentionally throwing at the runner is malicious and qualifies for an ejection. However, if the runner was running at the fielder clearly attempting to prevent the throw and thus put himself at risk, then I would lean toward interference on the runner.

More than likely it was a nothing and the runner gets home from the normal course of the play.

BTW, on a play like this, suppose the throw was made on R1 going to second, the ball ricochets off his face into the outfield and now B1 is running bases. The correct call is to let the play continue, but I'm blowing the call getting the coaches out there and giving the runners 2 bases on the throw.

[GarthB]

Tim:

I don't understand. If one can accept the concept of Authoritative Opinion, this case is closed.

How more authoritative can one get than all the major league umpires, AAA umpires, Both pro schools, the author of the BRD, and you?

But you're right, any further discussion will become meaningless argument. Time to move on to other issues, like, lets' say, does anyone actually call the batter out if he gets hits by a batted ball in "fair" corner of the batter's box?

GB

GB

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB
Tim:

I don't understand. If one can accept the concept of Authoritative Opinion, this case is closed.

How more authoritative can one get than all the major league umpires, AAA umpires, Both pro schools, the author of the BRD, and you?

But you're right, any further discussion will become meaningless argument. Time to move on to other issues, like, lets' say, does anyone actually call the batter out if he gets hits by a batted ball in "fair" corner of the batter's box?

GB

GB

You KNOW you have provided zero written support with exception of the BRD statement.. Even "the author of the BRD" indicates in his excerpt that you won't find anything in writing. I will add, except the rulebook, JEA, and J/R---which do not support the position you take, which is contradictory to the rule. While Childress seems to support most of what is in his comprehensive BRD with fact obtained elsewhere and summarized, it seems his position on this issue has no fact to support it---merely his opinion. So the fact that he prints it in a book should make it any less his opinion....????? Not !!!!!!
Do you think it has gone unnoticed by all that you fail to address the simplest of questions I have asked? Of course not!!!! Why? Because you don't have any valid answers to the questions !!! That is why they have been avoided.

Your ad hominem attacks are not unexpected. That seems to be the typical standard around here to regress to when you cannot support what you say with fact. It happened shortly before Childress got the ruling regarding the 4th Advantageous Out which supports REQUIRING the BR to run to first until put out after his at bat. Of course back then, I was going through this same type discussion with Warren Willson and others. Now, which way did PBUC, NCAA, and Fed all go with their ruling, Hmmmmmmmmm..????

Seems the rulings didn't support the position of "all the experts" of the boards. Maybe I lucked out, but that at least that makes me 3 for 3 on the positions I have taken and Childress has thought fit to check on. That sure seems better than the 50% Childress seemed so proud of over at the URC. Of course, as one poster put it, that's no better than a coin flip, is it.?

I will stick with what the rulebook, JEA, and J/R all state which will support my position. You can continue to contradict the rule based on what your friends tell you but won't put in writing. Maybe Childress WILL check this one out and PROVE me wrong.
After all, shouldn't contradicting the rulebook have SOME type of written support or even official interpretation?? If he can prove me wrong, that will be fine with me. At least finally at that time we will all then be able to find something worthwhile in print beyond opinion to support that position.

I would hope that we will then be able to agree---regardless of the outcome.
Until then, I must agree to disagree, and I will continue to enforce it on the field the way the rulebook, JEA, and J/R indicate it should be enforced.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Jul 9th, 2001 at 03:14 PM]

[GarthB]

I will not enter into an argument on this play.

I will take the direct statements made to me by Gerry Davis and Doug Harvey over the lack of what you consider proof. Simple. I will take a hundred years of practice over the vagueness of the rule book.

What I will not do is respond to anymore Quixotic cries of "paper, paper...where's the paper???" The baseball world is overflowing with verbal agreement from those far superior than you or I. Are they afraid to write it down? I doubt it. I believe they have more pressing issues to take their time. AS it is often said, the rule book is not written for amateur needs or inquiring minds.

Now then, do you or do you not call out batters hit by batted balls while in the fair portion of the batter's box?

GB

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB

Now then, do you or do you not call out batters hit by batted balls while in the fair portion of the batter's box?
GB

Quoted from JEA under Rule 6.05(g):
Customs and Usage: Professional umpires try to scrutinize the exact feet location of the batter when a drag bunt is attempted. In most all other situations in which the batter is hit with his fair batted ball, the ball is ruled "foul" if the batter is still within the confines of the batter's box. A similar umpiring axiom can be found in 6.0(h)...fair ball hitting bat a second time.

Well, Garth, it seems a ball striking a the batter IS specifically addressed in authoritative opinion.

Originally posted by GarthB

...I will take a hundred years of practice over the vagueness of the rule book
GB

Quoted from JEA under Rule 7.09(k):
7.09(k) It is interference by a batter or a runner 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, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball.

[snip]

The rule serves two purposes: (1) It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base [my emphasis], and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first.


Garth, I have put the rule and some passages from JEA reagrding the running lane. Please point out to me the "vague areas" you reference that you do not seem to understand in the writing of this rule. From what I see here, a LL player could interpret this rule. I don't see any "vague areas" but that may be due to my inabilities. Perhaps you may feel that the fielder should be capable of fielding the ball while the runner, outside his legal running lane, crashes him.

---

Now, would you care to address my questions as you, and others professing your position, still seem to be avoiding them.

(1) Wouldn't one think in regards to your interpretation which is in direct contradiction to the written rule, that SOMEONE of recognized authoritative opinion would have put it in print???

(2) Since JEA states the purpose of the rule is that "It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base", would that purpose differ whether the throw was coming from home vs. F6 or even F4?? Is it less dangerous when he gets crashed if the throw is from F6 or F4?

(3) Would you feel it appropriate to seek an official interpretation since your position apparently is not addressed in print by our most reknowned authoritative sources? If it is such a widely accepted practice (Childress, quoted: "it has been codified via the decisions of thousands of umpires in tens of thousands of games played all over the world.") wouldn't it be appropriate to "develop" the needed written support that apparently does not yet exist (after all these years)??

---

Until such time, I guess the authority to contradict the rule is best explained by Rich when he stated:

"All I know is that every "big dog" in the world (and I know ya love the phrase "big dog") calls it this way."

Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

As previously stated, I will not continue what obviously is becoming an endless argument regarding the running lane. You refuse to listen to any voice but your own. If you wish to interpret it and enforce contrary to the entire history of baseball and the opinion of every major league umpire (and T. Alan), so be it. Have it. Enjoy. As for me, the above sources far outweigh the opinion of any amateur umpire in Texas.

Regarding the batter's box, I see you quoted Evans and not just the rule book. Good for you. There may be hope.