The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 20
Quick question (perhaps O/T), but why the dis-respect of the J/R all of a sudden? I noticed that Carl Childress does not use it anymore in the BRD. It seemed to me to be a widely respected document.

Also, if the fielder's throw pulls the 1B toward home and he collides with the B/R while attempting to field that throw, I am inclined to call nothing. I base that upon the belief that the fielder was doing what he was supposed to be doing and will also make a judgment on "intent". It is like the Armbrister/Fisk incident in '75. If the batter immediately breaks out of the box and the catcher bounces out, both were doing what they were supposed to do and the contact is incidental.
__________________
"You see, you spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." - Jim Bouton
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
J/R has not kept pace with the updated interps coming out of the schools and MLBUM. That limits its usefulness.

In FED, a fielder without the ball may not deny a runner access to a base. It doesn't matter what he was "supposed" to be doing.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 27, 2012, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northwest suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
J/R has not kept pace with the updated interps coming out of the schools and MLBUM. That limits its usefulness.

In FED, a fielder without the ball may not deny a runner access to a base. It doesn't matter what he was "supposed" to be doing.
Mike, in the play we discussed, the player did not deny a runner access to a base. His collision with the runner who has just touched first base is deemed immaterial and legal. That is their interp after all, not J/R's.

The J/R does a great job providing interpretations for OBR, NCAA and Fed baseball. My book is a year old and has kept pace just fine. School philosophies change (The new PBUC school is making them to long held JEAPU conceptions!) and some students of such find acceptance of other ways to be troubling. You teach that subject and know how variants arise and evolutions take place. I haven't seen another interp disagree with J/R on this play but if one exists I will happily consider it. Who knows, maybe Hopkins and the NFHS will as well. I hope your season begins soon and goes well.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 177
I had the OP (b) in a scrimmage Saturday. No runners, Throw to F3 was wide toward right field, F3 fell down attempting to field the ball. BR tripped over F3 and went down as well. F2 was covering the overthrow and came up with the ball quickly.

I ruled that since F2 covered the overthrow, BR had no opportunity to go to 2nd, F3 did no deny BR a chance to advance, so no call on the possible interference.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by john5396 View Post
interference.
Says all I need to know about that one...
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:24am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpdeppert View Post
Also, if the fielder's throw pulls the 1B toward home and he collides with the B/R while attempting to field that throw, I am inclined to call nothing. I base that upon the belief that the fielder was doing what he was supposed to be doing and will also make a judgment on "intent". It is like the Armbrister/Fisk incident in '75. If the batter immediately breaks out of the box and the catcher bounces out, both were doing what they were supposed to do and the contact is incidental.
There is a HUGE difference between fielding a batted ball (as in the Armbrister/Fisk play) and trying to catch a thrown ball.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 29, 2012, 11:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
Video training

From YouTube collision at 1st

YouTube collision at firtst - Yahoo! Search Results

See video 1 for collision before 1st base and video 4 (warning: softball) for collision after 1st base is touched.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:28pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 01, 2012, 12:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
I love the running lane comments. Completely clueless.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1