First base play Seattle Mariners

[ManInBlue]

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

Everything you wrote is wrong.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

However, to be outside of the running lane BOTH feet have to be out side the lines. One foot even ON the line is considered in the lane.

Great explanation of the rule, but it cannot be applied here if only one foot was outside the line.

Umpire may have judged that both feet were outside - then you have a point.

You could not be more wrong.

[ManInBlue]

I just love your candor, Steven. Not everything I wrote was wrong - A foot on the line IS considered in the lane. Please be more accurate with your comments.

You both are correct. I am wrong. Don't have a Hank's idea in hell where I came up with that. Serious brain fart on my part. Sorry about that.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I just love your candor, Steven. Not everything I wrote was wrong - A foot on the line IS considered in the lane. Please be more accurate with your comments.

You both are correct. I am wrong. Don't have a Hank's idea in hell where I came up with that. Serious brain fart on my part. Sorry about that.

You're still wrong. Both feet have to be inside the running lane. Neither foot can be touching outside the lines. It wouldn't be a running lane if you are allowed to run outside of it even with a foot touching outside the lane.

Do you drive straddling the middle lane on the highway? How's that for candor?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Not everything I wrote was wrong - A foot on the line IS considered in the lane.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

You're still wrong. Both feet have to be inside the running lane. Neither foot can be touching outside the lines. It wouldn't be a running lane if you are allowed to run outside of it even with a [i]foot touching outside the lane.

How is what he said still wrong? I didn't read him saying running with one foot outside (to the left of) the foul line is not a violation.


Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that “lane” but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot “lane” or on the lines marking the “lane.”



Tim.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You could not be more wrong.

Be patient. You might be surprised.

[mick]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Be patient. You might be surprised.

Ha ! ...Funny !

[greymule]

Was it similar to this play?

[BigUmp56]

The images as I see them don't show interference.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I agree. It looks like a really bad throw. The runner did not cause the pitcher to throw wildly. It looks like the umpire is about to get plastered though.

Hey Darien, back under the bus again.