8.3.2.k

[gpdeppert]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[john5396]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by john5396

interference.

Says all I need to know about that one...

[CT1]

Originally Posted by gpdeppert

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.

[SAump]

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.

[dash_riprock]

I love the running lane comments. Completely clueless.