R3 on thrid. Grounder to F5 who makes the out at first easily. F3 throws the ball in an attempt to retire r3 at the plate and hits the batter-runner with the thrown ball right in his mouth. Blood everywhere as the ball rolls into foul territory about 2 feet behind first base. I am in C position so I don't know in what location the runner was at at the time he got clobbered by F3's throw . There is a new umpire behind the plate and we are both startled by the gruesome, bloody, horrifying result of a fast ball thrown right at the batter runner who was about 2 feet in front of F3 at the time of the throw. He was immediately taken to the hospital.

Here are the possible scenarios:

1)The batter runner is running in fair territory, outside the 45 foot running lane and gets hit by the ball thrown by F3.

2) The batter runner is running in his proper 45 foot base path and gets hit by F3's thrown ball in foul territory.

3) The batter runner is running outside the running lane in fair territory and F3, out of anger, deliberately and maliciously throws the ball right at him.

4) The batter runner who is running in the 45 Foot running lane gets deliberately and maliciously hit by F3's thrown ball.

In all situations R3 is on his way to home when the the batter runner, whose is already out on the force play at first, get hit by F3's thrown ball to home.

My question is as follows:

Where would you put R3, the batter-runner and F3 in scenario 1,2,3 and 4? Also, in each scenario would you call a dead ball or delayed dead ball? Fed rules please.

Greg

[Edited by Gre144 on Jul 3rd, 2001 at 11:06 PM]

In OBR you've got nothing!
 

I won't try to vouch for FED rules, but in OBR you've got a play that's over with one run in, one out at first, and a retired batter with a sore mouth.
The running lane doesn't enter into your play at all because it is only considered on a ball being fielded TO first. Once the out was made at first, your runner was no different than a runner retired as the lead out on any double play attempt.
It isn't believable that your retired batter-runner would interfere with the throw because of the obvious consequences. More than likely, he was "surprised" by the throw, and will bear scars as a result, but he isn't expected to "evaporate" after a put-out, he just can't interfere intentionally with the continuing play.

Re: In OBR you've got nothing!
 

In the particular situation that I described, the batter-runner getting hit by the ball, may have prevented the out at home plate. Couldn't you threfore call interference on him and call R3 out at the plate?

Re: Re: In OBR you've got nothing!
 

FED ruling is the same - interference with a throw must be intentional; not likely in this case. The ball remains live and the run scores. At the end of playing action call "Time" and have the coaches tend to the injured player.

One of your scenarios (#3) included F3 intentionally pegging BR in the face with the throw. (The base umpire should see this since a play was just made there.) If that is judged to be the case, F3, under FED rules, could be ejected.

Re: Re: Re: In OBR you've got nothing!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thom Coste





One of your scenarios (#3) included F3 intentionally pegging BR in the face with the throw. (The base umpire should see this since a play was just made there.) If that is judged to be the case, F3, under FED rules, could be ejected.


JMO,
But the player SHOULD BE ejected and the incident
reported to governing Federation body.

Re: Re: Re: In OBR you've got nothing!
 

One of your scenarios (#3) included F3 intentionally pegging BR in the face with the throw. (The base umpire should see this since a play was just made there.) If that is judged to be the case, F3, under FED rules, could be ejected. [/B][/QUOTE]

But if you eject F3 would it be like an obstruction and you therefore advance r3 to home?
Greg

Re: Re: Re: Re: In OBR you've got nothing!
 

[QUOTE Originally posted by Thom Coste]
One of your scenarios (#3) included F3 intentionally pegging BR in the face with the throw. (The base umpire should see this since a play was just made there.) If that is judged to be the case, F3, under FED rules, could be ejected.
.................................................. ...
Originally posted by GRE144

But if you eject F3 would it be like an obstruction and you therefore advance r3 to home?
.................................................. .....
Greg IMO,
No, F3 did not obstruct, he could have as stated in
scenarios #3 & #4 committed an very serious and un-
sportsman malicious act. I agree with senior, you
have a run, an out and a very justified ejection of
F3 if IYRO he deliberately hit BR as scenarios 3/4.

{IYRO - in your opinion}

45 foot lane doesn't apply
 

The 45 foot lane only applies when there is a throw coming from behind the batter (or sometimes said: from the box) TO first base.

Otherwise, like every other runner, the RUNNER determines his basepath.

Think of it this way: On a base hit to the outfield, is the runner restricted to the lane? Is any other runner restricted anywhere?

In your play, regardless of whether the throw hits the runner or not, and regardless if the throw is intentional or not, play continues. The BR can never be called for interference, unless it is deemed intentional (the runner swerves into the throw, for example).

After play ends, if an umpire deems the throw from F3 to be intentional, he will eject the player.

Rich

Re: 45 foot lane doesn't apply
 

Once again I would like to see any rule, official interpretation, or printed authoritative opinion from JEA, J/R, or the like that states that the running lane is not applicable if the throw to first base is made from somewhere other than the home plate area. Written documentation from Evans or Wendlstat school would also suffice.

To date, many have made this claim, yet none have been able to provide proof of it. I will contend that if a ball is hit to F6, and the throw to 1st is off toward home plate yet good enough to be gloved for the out, it would be lane violation if BR, outside the running lane, were to contact F3's glove in fair territory preventing him from receiving the throw.

Rich, please provide proof to the contrary and to support your statement. If you can't provide proof of it, then you are passing on heresay information that says "do not enforce" the running lane violation. This one requires more than someone just saying it if you are to take it as fact.
Where's the beef????

Just my opinion,

Freix

", in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base,"

If the throw is wide, it's not B/Rs fault. F3 had a clear shot at the throw, if it were good. Can't penalize B/R for lousy throw.

You can argue your point as much as you want, but it will be to no avail. It has always been understood that the throw must come from the vicinity of home plate, and you aren't going to change it.

Bob

Around and around and around we go....

Steve, I'm not gonna provide ya proof. All I know is that every "big dog" in the world (and I know ya love the phrase "big dog") calls it this way. I challenge you to find a credible case book play dealing with running lane interference where the throw comes from the left side of the infield. You won't just like I won't -- the intent of the rule is so obvious that you don't need ten case plays to explain it.
----------------------
The fielder does not have the right to throw wide. The intent of the rule was so the fielder, making the play from behind the runner, would have a guaranteed throwing lane. The shortstop has a throwing lane - anywhere except in the path of the runner. The catcher, pitcher, and in some cases the third baseman need the throwing lane that is provided by the 45-foot running lane rule.

I'm not going to continue to argue this. It's like me hitting myself in the head with a ballpeen hammer -- I notice how good it feels when I stop.

Rich

Rich, you gotta love it
 

First of all Rich, as you probably know, hearsay refers to one testifying to something he heard someone tell someone else. If you are testifying, or repeating what you were told directly by someone, that is not hearsay.

Your interpretation is what I was told at a clinic with Gerry Davis and another one, years ago with Doug Harvey.

Your interpretation is what I was told by Chad Buckalew, a former minor league umpire and graduate of Brinkman's.

Your interpretation is what I was told was taught at Jim Evans school by Pete Paluk, a recent grad who went on to UDP.

Your interpretation is the only one I have ever seen enforced by Major League umpires in the past 40 years.

You are in good company, Rich.

GB

Garth,

Your baseball intepreration in right on, but the hearsay definition is a little off.

There is compentent hearsay, and incompentent hearsay evidence. What you have described would be competent hearsay. Statements made by identified persons, recgonized experts in the field in question as to the standard practices of their profession.

The statement concerning your 40 years of observations of the application of the rule would be circmstantial evidence.

Both types of evidence as you describe them would probably be admissiable in the courts of our land. Compentent hearsay and/or circumstancial evidence are often enough to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you go to bed and the ground is dry and clear, and you wake up in the morning and it is covered with several inches of a cold white powder that Blain (having had much experience with snow) tells you will turn to water if it is heated, you now have circumstantial and competent hearsay evidence that it snowed during the night.

Some might argue that that is insuficient evidence. I wouldn't.

Roger Greene

Likely because, to the best of my knowldedge, written proof from the sources we commonly use does not exist. Otherwise, you WOULD provide it. I know you that well, Rich.

The JEA states:<ul><font color=red>
The rule serves two purposes: (1) <u>It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base</u> [my underline], and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first.</ul></font color=red>
I am not discussing a BR being hit with a ball or screening F3, but I am discussing item (1) of the JEA quote which is being out of the path and contacting the fielder. Why should that matter regarding WHERE the throw originates? Some have said because that is how it is applied at other bases. My response is that at other bases the runner is not allowed to overrun (after his contact) and typically slides or slows down if not sliding (far less a safety issue). At home plate, where he might overrun, the runner is typically in foul territory (away from the throw) as he has rounded third and headed home. His altering his path to the inside then becomes very obvious. How many such plays do you see occurring there with runners in fair territory interfering with a throw or going there to make contact with a catcher?? Is it possible the rulemakers condsidered this. They may have also considered the NUMEROUS force outs made at first vs. other bases.

Furthermore, JEA adds:<ul><font color=red>
One factor influencing the umpire's judgment on these plays is the quality of the 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.

The ball must be thrown for this rule to be invoked; otherwise, it is impossible for him to interfere with a fielder “taking” a throw.</font color=red></ul>
So, why is a throw off to the home plate side of first yet very easily gloved (say 5-7ft which is an easy step and reach for F3 while still contacting the base) not considered a good throw by you??? Wouldn't that same throw be good if it were to the right field side of the base and gloved, causing the BR to be out??? There is nothing that says a throw must be perfect---it just requires a throw that can realistically retire the runner.

And Garth states in reply to Rich:
<b><ul>Your interpretation is what I was told at a clinic with Gerry Davis and another one, years ago with Doug Harvey.

Your interpretation is what I was told by Chad Buckalew, a former minor league umpire and graduate of Brinkman's.

Your interpretation is what I was told was taught at Jim Evans school by Pete Paluk, a recent grad who went on to UDP.

Your interpretation is the only one I have ever seen enforced by Major League umpires in the past 40 years. </ul></b>

To Garth I say, please provide their written opinions from their training. Hell, Evans, who uses his JEA for training (I am told) doesn't even put it in there.

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

Garth, I have NEVER seen it at the MLB level with exceptance of the Knoblauch play. Of course, that play WAS from the home plate area, and many to this date still agree the umps blew the call with their "no call".
Beyond that, I don't see it happening at the MLB level, so how can you say how they call it (or don't)??
However, I have in the past and continue to see it at the amateur level.

Where's the beef????
You provide proof for your other rule modifications, so why does that seem to be asking so much here???
Maybe this one should be chalked up among the MYTHS until such time as someone can prove it.

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 <u>directly contradicts the rule</u>. Keep in mind,<u> there IS proof</u> (JEA) that states the rule is there to prevent players from crashing the first baseman.

Just my opinion,

Freix

Steve: So good to hear from you, again
 

Having been gone for quite some time, I'm glad to see familiar signatures now that I'm back.

It's also good to see you are working hard at figuring out problem areas. It will help you continue to progress.

In regards to this particular rule, you say:

<i>"To Garth I say, please provide their written opinions from their training." </i>

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I will ask Chad and Pete if they are willing to share the notes they took in class. I have seen Pete's and they confirm Rich's interpretation.

You then ask a very logical question:

<i>"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???"</i>

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?

Regards your comment:

<i>"Garth, I have NEVER seen it at the MLB level with exceptance of the Knoblauch play. Of course, that play WAS from the home plate area, and many to this date still agree the umps blew the call with their "no call".
Beyond that, I don't see it happening at the MLB level, so how can you say how they call it (or don't)??
However, I have in the past and continue to see it at the amateur level."</i>

Obviously I can't say anything based on your experience, but I can based on mine. I can say how they call it based on seeing it called 8-10 times in the last 40 years. I don't know what games you've seen or how often you attend but I remember seeing it called twice in the same week at Candlestick in 1967.

You suggest:

<i>"Maybe this one should be chalked up among the MYTHS until such time as someone can prove it."</i>

If we called everything that the rulebook doesn't clarify MYTHS, we'd have an awful lot of myths. Sometimes we have to accept what is practiced at the highest levels by those who have spend the time and energy learning their craft and researching the intent of rules. I have no problem accepting what the pro schools teach and what Gerry Davis and Doug Harvey have said in clinics. I have no problem accepting years of of interpretation and practice.


You close with:

<i>"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."</i>

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?

If you do, I salute your consistency, and would suggest that you are truly unique. If not, if you can accept other areas that are similar in their treatment in the rulebook, why then the "cafeteria" style of acceptance?

Again. It was good to see you still on the board. I enjoy reading your posts and watching as you appear to continually improve.

Garth



[Edited by GarthB on Jul 6th, 2001 at 02:21 PM]

Agreeing with the boyz,
 

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.

Re: Steve: So good to hear from you, again
 

Well, then J/R covers it
 

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

Have you ANY written support, 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

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

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

Steve,
 

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.

It's good enough for me too
 

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

but.......Where's the beef ?????
 

Re: It's good enough for me too
 

David, I can't respond to a question which is based upon an incorrect premise. <u>I am not discussing plays where the throw is bad</u>. 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

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.

Added thoughts.................
 

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

Tim:

Someone keeps asking about written proof from a <b>recognized expert</b>. Here it is, excerpted by permission of the author (That's I) from the second-best selling baseball book for umpires in the 1980s:<ul><p><b>The running lane.</b> You know what that is; it's the lane they never mark with chalk on your field. But if they <i>did</i> 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.<ol type=A><p><li><b>Reason for the rule:</b> 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.</li><p><li><b>When the lane is important.</b> Let's get this point clear: What I'm about to say is <i>not</i> 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 <i>from behind the runner</i>. 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.</ol></li><p></ul>Referee Enterprises, Inc., published <i>The Umpire's Answer Book</i> by Carl Childress in 1988.<p>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 <i>first-best</i> selling book for umpires in the 1980s was <i>Behind the Mask</i>. 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) <b>Why do you feel it is not specifically listed anywhere, other than your writings, among the major publications of JEA, J/R, and PBUC?? </b>(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)<b>Would not any interpretation that directly contradicts the written rule warrant specific attention rather than "acceptance through deductive process" or "common usage"???</b> If so, it leads back to the question of why have others not more specifically addressed it if it were true.

3) <u>Since it is NOT specifically addressed</u>, <b>would it warrant you seeking a specific ruling if, indeed, it is accepted as broadly as you indicate?? </b> 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 <u>based on a <b>good throw</b></u> (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) <b>How is this addressed for Fed interpretions???</b> 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

Sorry Steve
 

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

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.

A/O
 

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? <grin>

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

Re: A/O
 

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 !!!!!!<b>
Do you think it has gone unnoticed by all that you fail to address the simplest of questions I have asked? Of course not!!!!</b> 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. <b>
After all, shouldn't contradicting the rulebook have SOME type of written support or even official interpretation??</b> 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]

Sorry.
 

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

Re: Sorry.
 

<b>Quoted from JEA under Rule 6.05(g):</b>
<font color=blue>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.</font color=blue>

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




<b>Quoted from JEA under Rule 7.09(k):</b>
<font color=blue>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) <b>It prevents a runner from leaving the basepath and intentionally crashing into the player covering first base</b> [my emphasis], and (2) It prevents a runner from illegally screening the player taking the throw at first.</font color=blue>


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.
<ul><hr color=red></ul>
Now, would you care to address my questions as you, and others professing your position, <b>still</b> 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)??
<ul><hr color=red></ul>
Until such time, I guess the authority to contradict the rule is best explained by Rich when he stated:

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

Just my opinion,

Freix

(sigh)
 

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.