This really happened. Your not going to believe it!

[Gre144]

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]

[senior]

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.

[Gre144]

Originally posted by senior
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.

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?

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by Gre144

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?

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.

[whiskers_ump]

[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.

[Gre144]

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

[whiskers_ump]

[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}

[Rich]

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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
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.
Rich

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

[bluezebra]

", 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

[Rich]

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

[GarthB]

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

[Roger Greene]

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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Around and around and around we go....

Steve, I'm not gonna provide ya proof.

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:

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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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, in direct contradiction to the written rule, 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 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.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

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:

"To Garth I say, please provide their written opinions from their training."

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:

"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?

Regards your comment:

"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."

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:

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

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:

"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?

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]