NFHS R8-S4-A1g(1): Running Lane Interference

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is the OBR rule: "A batter is out when: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he 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." It explicitly specifies that the batter is out for "interfering with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base".

Throws from 1B are not governed by the runner's lane, because the lane is specifically there to protect the fielder receiving the throw. The difference between NFHS and OBR is that NFHS does not require the throw to be a quality throw, but the point remains that the runner's lane rule is there specifically on throws to 1st base.

As one who has never shied away from quoting NCAA Men's/Women's Bkb., NBA/WNBA, and FIBA Rules when discussing Plays involving NFHS Bkb. Rules when they were germane to the Play. I am flummoxed as to why you would reference the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule in this discussion.

MTD, Sr.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

As one who has never shied away from quoting NCAA Men's/Women's Bkb., NBA/WNBA, and FIBA Rules when discussing Plays involving NFHS Bkb. Rules when they were germane to the Play. I am flummoxed as to why you would reference the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule in this discussion.

MTD, Sr.

The OBR rule is similar to the NFHS rule, except that OBR requires a quality throw. If OBR says that the lane is to prevent interference with the fielder taking the throw, and NFHS does not explicitly provide for something explicitly different, such as the provision that malicious contact always supersedes obstruction, then OBR principles can reasonably apply to this situation too. UmpireBible does a good job comparing NFHS rules to OBR rules, which is helpful, because there is no way to publicly access the NFHS rules.

On throws from 3rd base (where F5 is playing), the runner's lane is not likely to come into play, because the likelihood of the BR interfering with F3 taking the throw is low. There might be a different situation on a bunt, where F5 is approaching home to field the bunt and has a throwing angle that is restricted similar to the angle that the catcher has, but in most situations, the batter-runner will not interfere with F5's throwing angle to 1st base. The batter runner is more likely to interfere with F2 or F1, because the batter and the throw will be coming from the same direction and a similar angle.

The lane does not apply in reverse, because the rule on the runner's lane exists for 1 specific purpose: to allow the 1st baseman to take throws unobstructed by the batter-runner. The double first base, where adopted, exists for a similar reason, to avoid collisions at 1st base when the 1st baseman is trying to field the throw and the batter-runner is trying to reach the base at the same time. Once the batter-runner safely attains 1st base, the colored base becomes irrelevant.

Intereference by the batter-runner on a backwards throw from 1st base to home plate can be addressed by the existing rules, so there is no reason for the runner's lane to apply to throws FROM 1st base.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The OBR rule is similar to the NFHS rule, except that OBR requires a quality throw. If OBR says that the lane is to prevent interference with the fielder taking the throw, and NFHS does not explicitly provide for something explicitly different, such as the provision that malicious contact always supersedes obstruction, then OBR principles can reasonably apply to this situation too. UmpireBible does a good job comparing NFHS rules to OBR rules, which is helpful, because there is no way to publicly access the NFHS rules.

On throws from 3rd base (where F5 is playing), the runner's lane is not likely to come into play, because the likelihood of the BR interfering with F3 taking the throw is low. There might be a different situation on a bunt, where F5 is approaching home to field the bunt and has a throwing angle that is restricted similar to the angle that the catcher has, but in most situations, the batter-runner will not interfere with F5's throwing angle to 1st base. The batter runner is more likely to interfere with F2 or F1, because the batter and the throw will be coming from the same direction and a similar angle.

The lane does not apply in reverse, because the rule on the runner's lane exists for 1 specific purpose: to allow the 1st baseman to take throws unobstructed by the batter-runner. The double first base, where adopted, exists for a similar reason, to avoid collisions at 1st base when the 1st baseman is trying to field the throw and the batter-runner is trying to reach the base at the same time. Once the batter-runner safely attains 1st base, the colored base becomes irrelevant.

Intereference by the batter-runner on a backwards throw from 1st base to home plate can be addressed by the existing rules, so there is no reason for the runner's lane to apply to throws FROM 1st base.

What does a Throw from 1B have to do with my original play, you have quoted the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule. I do not care about the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule. I only want to discuss NFHS R8-S4-A1g(1) and how it applies to the Play that I have described. You have yet to address the NFHS Rule and how it applies to my particular Play.

MTD, Sr.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What does a Throw from 1B have to do with my original play, you have quoted the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule. I do not care about the MiLB/MLB/OBR Rule. I only want to discuss NFHS R8-S4-A1g(1) and how it applies to the Play that I have described. You have yet to address the NFHS Rule and how it applies to my particular Play.

MTD, Sr.

The problem is that NFHS rules are not publicly available. OBR are. This means that to understand NFHS, I have to go to a website such as UmpireBible to compare the two rule sets. UmpireBible states that the only substantial difference between NFHS and OBR is the requirement for a quality throw in OBR. This means that in NFHS games, the throw to 1B can be airmailed into the outfield and still result in an out for runner's lane interference, but in OBR, such a play would not qualify as runner's lane interference.

Because the two rules are similar enough, I can use the OBR rule as a starting point, while mentioning any necessary OBR/NFHS differences that are relevant. In this case, OP is most likely not interference, because it is unlikely that the batter-runner would be at such an angle to interfere with a throw from the shortstop. In addition, the batter-runner has to go into fair territory to touch 1B, so unintentional interference may happen, even if the batter-runner was in the lane the entire way prior to that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The problem is that NFHS rules are not publicly available. OBR are. This means that to understand NFHS, I have to go to a website such as UmpireBible to compare the two rule sets. UmpireBible states that the only substantial difference between NFHS and OBR is the requirement for a quality throw in OBR. This means that in NFHS games, the throw to 1B can be airmailed into the outfield and still result in an out for runner's lane interference, but in OBR, such a play would not qualify as runner's lane interference.

Because the two rules are similar enough, I can use the OBR rule as a starting point, while mentioning any necessary OBR/NFHS differences that are relevant. In this case, OP is most likely not interference, because it is unlikely that the batter-runner would be at such an angle to interfere with a throw from the shortstop. In addition, the batter-runner has to go into fair territory to touch 1B, so unintentional interference may happen, even if the batter-runner was in the lane the entire way prior to that.

1) The StateHSAAs of all fifty states use NFHS Baseball Rules. Which means that if you are a registered H.S. baseball umpire by your StateHSAA you should, at the very least, receive a copy of the NFHS Baseball Rules Book and Case Book every year.

2a) Yes, I know that the NFHS no longer publishes its Rules Books and Case Books online and can be downloaded for free, unlike the NCAA, (MiLB/)MLB(/OBR), and the WBSC which still do.

2b) One can still by a hard copy directly from the NFHS or through Referee.

MTD, Sr.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) The StateHSAAs of all fifty states use NFHS Baseball Rules. Which means that if you are a registered H.S. baseball umpire by your StateHSAA you should, at the very least, receive a copy of the NFHS Baseball Rules Book and Case Book every year.

2a) Yes, I know that the NFHS no longer publishes its Rules Books and Case Books online and can be downloaded for free, unlike the NCAA, (MiLB/)MLB(/OBR), and the WBSC which still do.

2b) One can still by a hard copy directly from the NFHS or through Referee.

MTD, Sr.

Aside from your tiff about different codes rule cites, my NFHS organization, TASO, TX has published an interp that the throw should come from behind the runner in the area of HP to use the RLI rule as anyone calling any baseball code would know. I don't know who your author is but he has picked up on the NFHS interp which has been adopted by TASO Texas where RLI is called when a throw is made and the B-R is illegally outside the lane at that instance. We, TASO, NFHS don't care if the throw puts out the B-R but we do have to have the throw coming from "behind" the runner and coming from F6 is not "behind". Please spare me any geometry lession.