running lane interference

[mrm21711]

The NFHS rule book states that no runner can interfere with a throw by running outside of the 3 foot baseline down to first base (paraphrasing i believe), so this means that a throw must not necessarily hit the runner for interference to be called? thanks

[DownTownTonyBrown]

How else would one interfere besides getting hit?

[Tim C]

. . . thought the same thing Tony until this season.

It is not FED but in an early season MLB game a lane violation was called (there is reference to it on this page somewhere) where the runner was obvious inside the line, HOWEVER THE THROW DID NOT HIT THE RUNNER it just went to his left and pst F3 and the interference was called . . .

Combine this with BFair's posts of last year where Rick Roder confirmed that a throw does not ONLY have to come from the little square behind the runner we are starting to see different views of what was once a pretty simple rule.

I am now confused, officially.

Tee

[DownTownTonyBrown]

The runner was inside and the throw was even farther inside and the defense was rewarded for this obvious, poor throw!!!??

You're right. I'm confused with you.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Here are the pertinent rules:

OBR
7.09
(k) 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, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; 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."

NFHS
8-4-1g
The batter runner is out when:
he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.
EXCEPTION: This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fileder whi is attmpting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fileder or a throw.
NOTE: The batter is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

First of all notice that it is a "three-foot running lane." I've have heard some call it a 45-foot lane or those double "L" umps call it a 30 foot lane. It is referred to by its WIDTH - 3 foot.

(OBR 2.00, NFHS 2-21) Interference: offensive team act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fileder attempting to make a play.

I don't see it. A runner with his back to the approaching throw can't do much more than be a big target. Defense shouldn't have dropped that third strike or defense should have coordinated their throw/catch effort better - I've never seen it be very difficult.

Guess I'll have to do a Google search for Bfair's comments.

[tiger49]

"I don't see it. A runner with his back to the approaching throw can't do much more than be a big target. Defense shouldn't have dropped that third strike or defense should have coordinated their throw/catch effort better - I've never seen it be very difficult.

Guess I'll have to do a Google search for Bfair's comments."[/B][/QUOTE]

I see it, and if the BR is following F3's eyes he can still put himself in a direct line between the fielder and F3 thus distracting his ability to see the complete throw.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by tiger49

I see it, and if the BR is following F3's eyes he can still put himself in a direct line between the fielder and F3 thus distracting his ability to see the complete throw.

The runner is still restricted to the three-foot running lane. Be a target in the running lane; follow F3's eyes all you want; defense has still got to make the play.

Would like to see F3 defend those actions to his coach after missing his catch. "Well the runner was looking at my eyes, Coach. What was I supposed to do?"

Maybe the catcher could come to his assistance, "Yeah, Coach, I could tell by the way he was bobbing his head in the running lane that he was watching his eyes. So I just threw the ball into right field. It's the runner's fault. The umpire should have called him out for interfering with his eyes. It's so distracting."

Sorry sarcasm's one of my strong points.

[DG]

From 2004 Fed Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG
From 2004 Fed Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane.

Which just proves that the NFHS sometimes doesn't have a clue.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by DG
From 2004 Fed Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane.

So lob it over F3's head everytime. Perhaps a new rule is in the making ... if the catcher can lob it over the BR and F3's head, the umpire shall call the BR out for interference.

ooohh there's that sarcasm thing again. Damnit!

[mrm21711]

I disagree, in the NFHS interpretation the runner clearly interfered with the throw. By running out of the 3 foot wide running "lane," he interfered with the throw correct? I would like to know the correct interpretation and application of the rule, not peoples opinions on the NFHS not having a clue, which is irrelevant because we do not make the rules just enforce them. thanks

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Which just proves that the NFHS sometimes doesn't have a clue.

Combined with situation 19, I think the rule makes sense for HS -- it's up to the umpire to judge whether the throw was bad, or the result of interference.

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)

[DG]

Originally posted by mrm21711
I disagree, in the NFHS interpretation the runner clearly interfered with the throw. By running out of the 3 foot wide running "lane," he interfered with the throw correct? I would like to know the correct interpretation and application of the rule, not peoples opinions on the NFHS not having a clue, which is irrelevant because we do not make the rules just enforce them. thanks

Until this ruling came out I had always ruled this play as not interference, since the runner did not interfere with the fielder's ability to catch the ball, ie the first baseman could not catch the ball over his head so there was no interference. I don't know, but I bet FED has ruled this way in the interest of safety since the other alternative for the catcher is to plug the runner in the back with the throw. I don't think I would rule this interference in OBR games.

[Rich]

Originally posted by mrm21711
I disagree, in the NFHS interpretation the runner clearly interfered with the throw. By running out of the 3 foot wide running "lane," he interfered with the throw correct? I would like to know the correct interpretation and application of the rule, not peoples opinions on the NFHS not having a clue, which is irrelevant because we do not make the rules just enforce them. thanks

Just being out of the lane doesn't constitute interference, even in FED baseball. Look at Situation 19.

And if you don't want opinions, don't read them -- I don't think you're entitled to decide what someone posts.

[3appleshigh]

By making the catcher lob the ball rather than throw the ball, he interfered with the catchers ability to make the play. If this is done by the illegal act of running outside the three foot zone it's interferance, whether the 1st baseman catches or not.
The problem lies in the fact that a real great player drills the BR in the back or the back of the head with a throw and gets the interferance call, but a slightly less qualified player trys to circomvent the player so as not to injure someone. Which is what they are tought to do, since this PC world has taught that one needs to be fair and friendly at all times. So in the spirit of safety i think you need to realize that causing the player to alter his play isjust as much interferance and knocking the ball down.