baseline

[DG]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Just out of curiosity, for those who are against what I said about teaching a cather what to do. Picture this play, and give me your calls

BR Bunts along 1st base line runs the entire way to first with his body staddling the foul line. Catcher fields the ball and throws to first:

1. A solid throw hitting the runner between the shoulder blades with runners Left foot on the ground and Right foot in the air.
2. A solid throw hitting the runner between the shoulder blades with runners Right foot on the ground and Left foot in the air.
3. Steps out toward either Fair or foul and throws a catchable Dart past First baseman into the out field.
4. Steps out toward either Fair or foul and throws an uncatchable Dart past First baseman into the out field.
5. Lobs the ball over the runner, and out of the reach of the first baseman
6. Lobs the ball over the runner, and within the reach of the first baseman, but he drops it.

Now change the play slightly where the runner is completely in Fair territory the entire time. Same 6 senarios, whats the call.

How about this play? Runner is running in fair, catcher rares back and throws one, as per his coach's instructions, directly at the runner who is 30 feet from the bag. It hits him at the base of the neck just below the helmet, the batter runner is suddenly stunned and falls face and hands forward, he puts his hands out to break his fall and breaks both wrists, comes down on his face and breaks his nose and 4 of his front teeth out. Which side would you rather represent in court?

It is irresponsible to coach players to intentionally hurt each other. Better to coach the catcher to move his feet, and make the best throw he can directly to F3, and F3 should give him the best target to whatever side of the bag is best.

[Rcichon]

Boyinblue24: what are you talking about? See LL rule 6.05(j)

They don't mention the words, "running lane", but that's what they're talking about.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by boyinblue24

Aww! Why?! I REALLY want to be on the same book, the same chapter, the same page.

Wow. My Acme Troll Sensor's siren is screaming so loudly I can barely hear myself say, "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it...stupid, stupid, stupid."

Good bye LittleBoyBlue.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by boyinblue24

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

You owe him an apology for this, Dan.

[3appleshigh]

DG--
well I know that you may not like it, but if that ball was thrown as described, IT IS AN OUT FOR INTERFERENCE. I also think you might be over stepping the possible outcomes a little. Also I am refering to upper big boy ball, where this stratagy is to be instructed, not young kids. In court, you would have an exceedingly difficult time proving liability against anyone, since the player was doing something that was against the rules when he ended up injured, due to a play that was a result of the catcher doing his proper job while the runner did not. I'm also sure it would be very difficult to prove what INTENT there was other than to throw the ball to First for the out, which is what the rule is there for. Run where you are supposed to and nothing should happen. Disobey the rules, and things could happen. An umpire who is afraid to make the right call because the player got hurt, is simply a Wuss.

[DG]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

DG--
well I know that you may not like it, but if that ball was thrown as described, IT IS AN OUT FOR INTERFERENCE. I also think you might be over stepping the possible outcomes a little. Also I am refering to upper big boy ball, where this stratagy is to be instructed, not young kids. In court, you would have an exceedingly difficult time proving liability against anyone, since the player was doing something that was against the rules when he ended up injured, due to a play that was a result of the catcher doing his proper job while the runner did not. I'm also sure it would be very difficult to prove what INTENT there was other than to throw the ball to First for the out, which is what the rule is there for. Run where you are supposed to and nothing should happen. Disobey the rules, and things could happen. An umpire who is afraid to make the right call because the player got hurt, is simply a Wuss.

If the runner is 30 feet from the bag when the thrown ball hit the runner it would be a hard sell to call that a quality throw. You live in a dream world if you think someone committing a crime is not capable of receiving a large judgment in front of a judge or jury. I am simply trying to educate someone who obviously does not understand coaching. You don't coach your players to perform in such a way as to possibly injure others when coaching them the right way is the right thing to do. You don't get it, that is clear.

[3appleshigh]

A straight line from the catcher to the base goes through the runner, 30 feet or 70 feet from the bag. Period. You don't get it that playing hard and to win, sometimes means people might get hurt. If they can step out and throw another way, that is optimal, i will agree, but if not, through the runner is the next option. Not throwing it into the outfield. as you try to go over the runner. For example, Nice bunt Just outside the batters box on 3rd base side, Catcher up and to the ball, Runner well in fair territory and has GOOD wheels, what should the catcher do. He should throw it directly at First base which MOST LIKELY is through the runners back.

also Throwing a ball in order to get an out is not a crime. You would have to PROVE the intent of the catcher to hit the runner, and providing a quality throw to First base that hits a runner would throw a big monkey wrench in the plans. Add to that the runner's actions and sorry, That would be a tough case to win. Just having injuries and a thought that he might have does not a victory make.

Also I would like to note, you think one must throw extra hard in order to hit the runner, a simple throw that the runner is impeding is what is needed, same throw one would make in the instance where the runner is in the running lane.

Now suppose your same senario of the player getting hit with the ball, while running in the lane, Falling and subsequent injuries. DO you still have a lawsuit. There is no reason for intent here, and as much proof that there was intent. Well are you still giving those $$$ to the runner???

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

A straight line from the catcher to the base goes through the runner, 30 feet or 70 feet from the bag. Period. You don't get it that playing hard and to win, sometimes means people might get hurt. If they can step out and throw another way, that is optimal, i will agree, but if not, through the runner is the next option. Not throwing it into the outfield. as you try to go over the runner. For example, Nice bunt Just outside the batters box on 3rd base side, Catcher up and to the ball, Runner well in fair territory and has GOOD wheels, what should the catcher do. He should throw it directly at First base which MOST LIKELY is through the runners back.

also Throwing a ball in order to get an out is not a crime. You would have to PROVE the intent of the catcher to hit the runner, and providing a quality throw to First base that hits a runner would throw a big monkey wrench in the plans. Add to that the runner's actions and sorry, That would be a tough case to win. Just having injuries and a thought that he might have does not a victory make.

Also I would like to note, you think one must throw extra hard in order to hit the runner, a simple throw that the runner is impeding is what is needed, same throw one would make in the instance where the runner is in the running lane.

Now suppose your same senario of the player getting hit with the ball, while running in the lane, Falling and subsequent injuries. DO you still have a lawsuit. There is no reason for intent here, and as much proof that there was intent. Well are you still giving those $$$ to the runner???

Grown-up catchers know how to find a lane to throw - usually by taking a side step. That's why you hardly ever see hit runners or interference calls in grown-up ball. Anyone who throws at the runner is untrained or a jerk. And if it's obvious that he threw at the runner . . .