Intentionally Deviating to Add Difficulty
 

I'm not sure how many of you happened to see a play between Detroit and New York involving Ichiro. I can't recall which game it was, but the situation was this: Ichiro was on second base, and someone hit a ground ball to the shortstop, who was playing deep. Ichiro, against common practice, took off for third. The shortstop decided to throw to first instead to retire the BR.

During the play (which was highlighted by an announcer during a replay), Ichiro started running straight to third from second. But then he deviated to his right and ran in an arc towards third base, essentially putting himself between the shortstop and third to add to the difficulty of any potential throw.

If the shortstop had thrown the ball to third and hit Ichiro in the back, would you consider an interference call under 7.08(b)? Why or why not?

I think I would only call it if the runner intentionally got in way of the player actively gloving the ball. Other than that, it's just great baserunning by one of the smartest players ever to lace up a cleat.

And I think it would be hard to say he did it intentionally with his back to the SS. He would not have any idea what the track of the throw to F5 is going to be.

Totally agree with KyleJT. Smart base running.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

I just find it interesting how a BR is required to stay in a runner's lane when going the last half distance from home to first. But a runner is free to knowingly place himself where he may force the fielder to alter his throw anywhere else along the bases.

In school we were taught to always loop when approaching a base in order to not have to deviate too far from the straight line between bases. Perhaps that is a lost art?

Huh? You mean ROUNDING a base... like every player from 12U up to the major leagues does? Lost art? I don't think so.

It was pretty obvious that what Ichiro did was not rounding. There was no way he was going to continue to home, seeing that the ball was fielded by the shortstop. Runners round bases when they anticipate they'll continue on. What Ichiro did was intentionally put himself in the perceived path of the throw.

When I was coaching and I had a runner coming to third, he was paying attention to the 3BC as to slide, come in standing, or head for home. If the SS fielded the ball and was throwing to 1B or 2B, I had my players ready to go home in case of an overthrow. I imagine he was doing the same thing. Again smart base running.

You imagine he was beginning a round of third base before reaching the shortstop? Really? (If this is what you are coaching, you're wasting several steps for them).

Weren't you taught to run toward the glove side of the fielder when the ball's coming from behind? That's pretty much SOP in baseball.

Exactly. So much of this is not done today because players simply aren't taught these things - they simply rely on talent.

Thanks
DAvid

Indeed I was. Ratology 101.

I think that's pretty much to keep the runner from blindsiding the fielder when the throw is coming from somewhere other than the HP area. And yes, the PBUC ruled that the throw can be coming from anywhere - because the rule doesn't limit it. If I recall CC's resulting rant correctly, they even wrote that they didn't want the runner crashing the fielder in the note they sent to CC.

A runner is not immune to intentional interference with a thrown ball just because the throw is coming from behind him and he can't see the ball.

By rule if out of the lane at first. But otherwise how could you sell an INT call on a throw the runner couldn't see? Maybe if he was waving his arms wildly in the air - but just running? Can a fielder deliberately hit the runner to try to get an INT call? Would he survive after doing that?

Throws hit runners as they are going into bases regularly. Never gets called. No one expects it to get called.

It's tossing out these "well maybe on the second Tuesday of the week when the moon is full" remote possibilities that get beginners thinking they can call it on a whim. It's counterproductive.