baseline

[NFump]

I know they're around here someplace. Where are they?

NOW....

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

If there was never a time that this would happen, There would not be a rule prohibiting the runner from doing what he is doing.

I didn't say there was never obstruction.
I said there was never a reason to throw AT a runners back.
There's a difference between a ball hitting a runner and a fielder throwing at the runner.
Just like there's a difference between incidental contact and malicious contact.

If you feel compelled to throw balls at people then go play kickball or dodgeball

[3appleshigh]

Once again, And I'll Type Slow for you

If the catcher simply cannot, or more likely doesn't have the TIME, to step out and around the runner, instead of lobing the ball into the out field, The CATCHER SHOULD THROW A NORMAL THROW to the FIRSTBASEMAN, in Some cases this will end up being THROUGH the base runner.

He should not Throw At the Runner, but AT FIRSTBASE. The runner just happens to be in the way because he is breaking the rules.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Once again, And I'll Type Slow for you

He sould not Throw At the Runner, but AT FIRSTBASE. The runner just happens to be in the way because he is breaking the rules.

This seems much more reasonable than this:

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

NO

If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call.

Tim.

[DG]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

If the catcher simply cannot, or more likely doesn't have the TIME, to step out and around the runner, instead of loobing the ball into the out field, The CATCHER SHOULD THROW A NORMAL THROW to the FIRSTBASEMAN, in Some cases this will end up being THROUGH the base runner.

He sould not Throw At the Runner, but AT FIRSTBASE. The runner just happens to be in the way because he is breaking the rules.

You ARE changing your position on this subject. In post #4 you said "If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call." and later defended this position even after several of us disagreed with this "coaching" style.

Maybe there is hope for you.

[3appleshigh]

Yes in post four I over simplified, I have gone on to repeatedly say throw to the bag through the runner.

I'm sorry you took it that he should go out of his way to hit a runner.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

I'm sorry you took it that he should go out of his way to hit a runner.

Not to belabor the point. but how else would anyone take: "If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call."


I don't see how you can lay blame for a "misunderstanding" at the feet of the reader.

[DG]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Yes in post four I over simplified, I have gone on to repeatedly say throw to the bag through the runner.

You did not oversimplify, you stated a coaching strategy. Then, you repeatedly said throw the ball to the runner's back and defended this strategy. Go back and read your posts. In #34, for example, you said in upper big boy ball this is a "strategy to be instructed".

You will never be cured until you admit you have a problem. No catcher, at any level, should be coached to throw at a runner. Take a step, find a lane, and throw the ball to F3.

[UmpJM]

BoyinBlue,

Have you ever considered officiating badminton?

You may not be cut out for baseball.

Just a thought.

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by boyinblue24

yes, but it says:

except that the batter-runner 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.

What I was taught was that since a runner is allowed to do this & let's just say he did; it wouldn't be anything if he was hit by a throw by a fielder. He didn't interfere, so it isn't the runner's fault.

Let's examine what you've written...calmy and lgoically.

The runner, you say, can run outside the lane to avoid a fielder fielding the ball, right? So you figure that while he's out side the lane avoiding this fielder fielding the ball, he can be hit by the ball thrown by a fielder without it being interference.

Question. If the fielder the runner is avoiding is fielding the ball, where did the ball come from that hit the runner? And, who threw it?

Now, in case you're tempted to reply that this is the same fielder and the same ball and the fielder threw it after the runner passed him, then the runner really doesn't need to be out of the lane anymore to avoid the fielder, does he?

[GarthB]

My God. Take a deep breath and re-read my post, s l o w l y.

If the runner/batter is running on either side of the lane to avoid the fielder fielding the ball, there is no ball to be thrown at him. There is only one ball in the game at a time. Get it yet? Please, think. How can someone throw a ball at him while he is avoiding the fielder fielding the ball????????????

If he ran outside or inside or freaking flew over and is now far enough past the fielder that the fielder can plunk him, then he no longer needs to be out of the running lane. Are you following this yet?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Question. If the fielder the runner is avoiding is fielding the ball, where did the ball come from that hit the runner? And, who threw it?

The grassy knoll, of course.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The grassy knoll, of course.

(Sigh)

You, know, I have to wonder why I'm stupid enough to keep trying. I can't believe anyone is that fargin' dense unless it's intentional. I had a class last year completely comprised of "alternative school" students and not one of them was as clueless or aggravating.

Time to put Littleboyblue back on the list.

[UmpJM]

Personally, I'm having second thoughts.

Badminton can be a pretty "fast" game.

Maybe croquet?

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by boyinblue24

W E A R E O N T H E S A M E P A G E!!

No, we're not. Never have been and from what I've seen, never will be. Not the same page, not the same chapter, not even the same book.