B1 bunts ball and F2 Fields ball in front of home plate. F2 realises he does not have a line of sight to first base and tries to lob the ball over B1 who is not in the running lane as he nears first base. F3 leaps but he can't catch the ball. Although F2 made errant throw B1 guilty of interference as per 8-4-1G.

Since the running lane is in foul territory the only way to tag first base is go out of the running lane as you approach it. Hopefully if the above happens BR is running in fair territory all the way to first base this would be a pretty easy call to explain. This could easily happen R1 on second base batter attempts a sacrifice bunt catcher fields the ball in front of the plate realizes his only play is at first BR is in the running lane as he approaches first he leaves the lane to tag first and the catcher lobs the ball over the BR before he reaches first and F3 can't make the play. As per rule 8-4-1g it would seem we would have to call BR out for interference even
though BR was doing what he was supposed to do.

What do you guys think? Fed Rules Only.

For the very reason you mention - that 1B is in fair territory - both common sense and professional instruction command that umpires grant the batter runner the leeway to come into fair territory to touch 1B in his last step or two as he arrives at the base. In addition and again supported by professional instruction and not contradicted (to my knowledge) by any FED casebook play, the throw to F3 must be a "quality" throw, meaning it must be a throw that F3 could have otherwise, if not for the interference, received to complete the putout on the batter runner.

In your play you would have no interference because you did not have a quality throw. Now, if the throw had hit the batter runner as he approached 1B, you would then have to judge if he was out of the running lane when hit and NOT in the "grace area" of his last step or two before touching 1B. Then and only then would you have the runner out for lane interference.

I agree and I would look for a quality throw but I was on the NFHS web site and situation 20 in their rules iterpretation seems to contradict this. If you get a chance check it out and let me know what you think.

The verbage from the original post is almost word for word from Situation 20 from the 1/25/04 Fed Interpretations Release (on the NFHS website). This interpretation is FED only. FED wants this called interference, even when the throw was not a quality throw.

"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. (8-4-1g)"

[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree and I would look for a quality throw but I was on the NFHS web site and situation 20 in their rules iterpretation seems to contradict this. If you get a chance check it out and let me know what you think. [/B][/QUOTE]

Situation 20 definitely contracts your thinking, which would be the correct ruling in OBR.

Nope,
 

Dave I respectfully disagree with you.

There is a distinct difference in FED and OBR. Federation rules are exclusive to their game. With the addition of the Case Book and Umpire Manual FED DOES NOT revert to OBR when a rule is interpreted.

In college, for example, the rules specifically note that if something is not covered in their rule book that the rulings revert to OBR.

FED does not give this direction.

In FED, the Case Book is to establish either as direct link between rules or to at least give the "direction" that FED wants followed.

In FED there is no written direction that a "quality throw" is necessary and my expereince is that is EXACTLY what they meant when they wrote the rule.

Tee

Re: Nope,
 

I stand corrected on the "quality throw" interpretation, given the FED Situation 20 at their website. I would have to say, though, this interpretation qualifies as a "gratuitous rule difference" for which there is no real need from a common sense and fair play perspective.

OK,
 

Dave, if I may, let me give you a little background on this specific rule.

FED did entertain the thought of "quality throw" a few years ago. They selected to not follow that direction.

FED, as we have discussed several times, rules differ for four major reasons.

They want rules that are aimed at safety, participation, speed of play and assisting lower experienced umpires.

The "quality throw" issue touched on TWO of these catagories and therefore was rather easy for them to decide.

FED recognized that a "quality throw" added umpire judgment to recognize the ability of players. They did not like the concept of placing a "quality" decision in the hands of an umpire that may not have the experience to make that judgment.

They also recognized that if they decided that the call was based on a "quality throw" that meant on this specific play that would mean that the throw, by the nature of the origin of the play, would neccessarily be passing close to the runners head. FED, in their own version of wisdom, decided that "could" possibly lead to catcher's having open season on hitting BRs in the back of the head while making a "quality throw!"

I think FED beleives that they did rule under the concept of common sense and fair play.

Tee

Re: OK,
 

Not disagreeing with you Tee, just the concept that Fed is trying to feed us. In some areas Varsity baseball is up there near heaven and now for this rule the players are being treated as Little League, (Your favorite subject I know). The runner is protected for this rare, rare occasion by their helmet. To award the defense this call because of their inability to execute the most basic part of the game in my mind, is a little preposterous.

Basically they are encouraging officials to rule in that situation, any bad throw should be a result of the interference. It just plain looks bad. IMO.

I for one

jicecone
 

And, in no way, do I disagree with your position.

The challenge we are faced with is that even within specific states ALL Fed baseball is not "near heaven."

FED rules are written to cover the games as played by over 12,000 high school and middle school teams. FED seldom writes rules for "quality" programs -- the rules are written so they can play in a big time varsity game in Texas but also a JV game in Kansas.

Again, I suggest to ALL "Fedlandia" umpires -- call the FED rules exactly as your local area directs. If your Big Dogs want a quality throw that is the direction you follow.

The issue remains:

NFHS does not require a quality throw by written rule.

Tee

Hi Tee,

I don't think they did it for common sense more likely they saw it as a potential safety issue. However, we all know that they are actually rewarding a poor defensive play (when catcher calls for the throw to be inside or outside)
hardly seems fair to do this but I guess we have to. I better print a copy of that interp. and carry it with me just in case. LOL

I think you need to read situations 19 and 20 together. IF the runner is in a position to (potentially) cause an errant throw, call the interference. If the runner isn't in position to cause an errant throw, don't call interference, even if the trhow hits the runner while the runner is out of the lane.

Agreed. I was responding to the play in question, where the runner was in a position to be called for interference. inside the line, in the line of sight between the catcher and 1B.

Prior to the printing of SITUATION 20 I would have ruled no interference in a FED game, but no more. This ruling seems aimed at safety to me. They don't want balls in gloves being tossed around, much less a catcher firing a shot up the line that might hit a runner in the way. If the catcher tries to lob the ball over a runner who is not where he is supposed to be, they want interference called. So be it.

I agree that 19 and 20 have to go hand-in-hand to make the Fed's intent clear. Still, the line that is drawn between the no-call in Sitch 19 and the interference in Sitch 20 is a pretty fine one. I think it's "simpler" to teach umpires that in both of those situations, the absence of a quality throw means there's no interference. It seems a more nuanced judgment than "quality throw" is being expected of the umpire in judging interference in Sitch 20.

You are missing the fine point difference between 19 and 20. In 19 there was not a quality throw and it was not interference. In 20 there was not a quality throw and FED wants it called interference, because the runner was between the catcher and 1B, inside the line.