baseline
 

i just wanted to throw this out. Yet to have a complaint and would like to know what other umps think...
i believe for running to first is last half of the way they have the line and 3 feet to right.
what about when dropped third strike and runner is taking the path on either side. specially when ball goes in fair territory and he is inside foul line to make it a difficult throw for catcher.
Would you call anything? or is this not interference?

The "running lane" is in effect on the uncaught third strike. Merely running out of the lane is not interference, however.

o.k.
yet it might not be interference.
running out the the base line is...if he knows to run inside the foul line to make a throw to first difficult, can this not be called a out for running out of the baseline if the catcher cannot make a throw because he is running in fair territory.
just a question

NO

If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call.

so if he hits the runner, do we call interference

If he is out of the running lane you do. you can also call it if the catcher throws the ball away into the Field, but it is a much harder sell.

Depends. The BR shall run in the running lane when there will be a throw from the plate area, usually from F2, but it could be F1, or maybe F5 and it's usually a bunt or third strike not caught. If he is out of the running lane and is struck by a quality thrown ball he shall be ruled out for interference. The quality thrown ball is important. Let's say he swings at strike 3 and the ball gets away from F2 to his right. The BR is running left of the foul line in fair territory and is struck by a throw from F2 who has retrieved the ball. The BR is struck 15 feet from the bag and the throw has no chance of reaching 1b. This is not a quality throw and we shall not call interference on this one. Or let's say the BR lays downa bunt and is running right of the running lane when he is struck by a throw that has no chance of reaching 1b, same thing, not a quality throw. The BR is not interfering with the thrown ball, but with F3's opportunity to catch it. If it's a bad throw then there is no interference with F3. Also, there can never be an interference call without a throw, again because he is not interfering with F3's right to catch it, if it wasn't thrown.

One exception in FED, there is an interp out there that says if F2 throws the ball over F3's head trying to lob it over the BR we shall rule interference on this. This is FED interp only, OBR would consider this to be a poor quality throw.

F2 should never be coached to intentionally throw at a runner or he will surely hit one with a poor throw someday and could cause an injury. He should be coached to do his best to make a good throw to 1b and let the chips fall where they may. If in so doing he hits the BR then the umpires will rule on it considering the position of the runner and the quality of the throw.

The catcher should be taught that it is better to hit the runner, then to lob it past the firstbaseman.

This is also an NCAA interp. I believe it was in the 2006 or 2007 preseason bulletin.

Also, for what it's worth, i've seen the "lob throw" called interference in an MLB game. It was a replay from about 1992 (NLCS i believe).

I would not call that a rule setting precedent. A lob throw over F3's head is NOT a quality throw and the BR did NOT interfere with F3's ability to catch it.

What I see taught is for F3, who is looking at the BR coming towards him, to hold glove out to the "open" side, away from runner, to give F2 a good target...

so back to my original question. Is it legal for a baserunner to run inside the foul line the last half of the distance to first base?

Yes, as long as he doesn't interfere with the throw from home plate area. It's NOT an automatic interference call if he's out of the lane. You have to consider factors discussed earlier in the thread.

Interference of the throw is NOTHING. Interference of the CATCH, while out of the lane, is the violation.

As always, FED is the exception.

Yes, as long as he doesn't interfere with the defensive player attempting to field the throw at first, he can run wherever he wishes.

The catcher should not be taught anything of the sort.

The catcher should be taught to clear the running lane, ignore the BR, and throw to F3 as if there was no runner. If it turns out BR illegally interferes with a quality throw, you have an out.

Any coach teaching the catcher to hit the runner runs the risk of getting a no-INT call if the umpire rules the throw was a try to hit the runner as opposed to a quality throw to retire him.

[/QUOTE]

Remember you cannot rule interference until IN FACT the runner interferes.

It's no different than this question?

Is it legal for a runner to miss a base.

Answer: YES UNLESS the defense appeals

Therefore, the answer to your question is

Yes it is legal for a base runner to run outside the foul line the last half of the distance to first base.

Pete Booth

Think of it this way: The rule doesn't prohibit the B/R from running outside the lane, it prohibits him from interfering with the fielder's catch while running outside the lane.

I don't purport to be an expert on LL rules, but I find this hard to believe.

Once again, jumping out there with an incorrect ruling. No, this is not correct - in LL, the interference rule regarding a runner more than halfway to first is IDENTICAL to higher levels.

Just out of curiosity, for those who are against what I said about teaching a cather what to do. Picture this play, and give me your calls

BR Bunts along 1st base line runs the entire way to first with his body staddling the foul line. Catcher fields the ball and throws to first:

1. A solid throw hitting the runner between the shoulder blades with runners Left foot on the ground and Right foot in the air.
2. A solid throw hitting the runner between the shoulder blades with runners Right foot on the ground and Left foot in the air.
3. Steps out toward either Fair or foul and throws a catchable Dart past First baseman into the out field.
4. Steps out toward either Fair or foul and throws an uncatchable Dart past First baseman into the out field.
5. Lobs the ball over the runner, and out of the reach of the first baseman
6. Lobs the ball over the runner, and within the reach of the first baseman, but he drops it.

Now change the play slightly where the runner is completely in Fair territory the entire time. Same 6 senarios, whats the call.

Day game or night game?

If either foot is outside the running lane, the runner is considered out of the lane. In the air or not, if the last time the foot was on the ground it was out then I'll consider him out of the lane.
That said, there's still a lot of judgement left.
If F3 has moved to the outside and F2 throws to BR left shoulder blade, it may be judged as throwing at the runner, not interference.
If F3 is on the inside and F2 hits the shoulder, most likely interference.


Same as #1

If F3 has stepped to the outside and F3 steps outside and BR is inside I have nothing.
If F3 is inside, F2 is inside and BR is inside we have a problem

Same as #3

Fed. casebook says interference

Could sell it either way. But probably Interference

If the bunt is right down the line, the proper technique is for F3 to set up on the outside, F2 to step to the outside and make the throw. (assuming catcher is RH, inside setup for LH catcher)
If F3 sets up outside and BR is hedging inside I've got nothing. no matter
If F3 sets up outside and BR hedges outside, now we have a situation.

F2 should never aim for BR. He should be getting in the best position to make a throw to F3, and that position depends on where F3 is setting up, then fire to his glove.

First, I don't work LL games. But I know that LL rules are based on OBR with some revisions. For you to be correct, LL would have had to eliminate consideration of the running lane. Since I see running lanes lined out during televised LL games, I find this curious.

Do you have a rule book?

heheheh

*whistles*

How about this play? Runner is running in fair, catcher rares back and throws one, as per his coach's instructions, directly at the runner who is 30 feet from the bag. It hits him at the base of the neck just below the helmet, the batter runner is suddenly stunned and falls face and hands forward, he puts his hands out to break his fall and breaks both wrists, comes down on his face and breaks his nose and 4 of his front teeth out. Which side would you rather represent in court?

It is irresponsible to coach players to intentionally hurt each other. Better to coach the catcher to move his feet, and make the best throw he can directly to F3, and F3 should give him the best target to whatever side of the bag is best.

Ll
 

Boyinblue24: what are you talking about? See LL rule 6.05(j)

They don't mention the words, "running lane", but that's what they're talking about.

Dan, is this you?

Do you even own a rule book?

Thanks for helping with the general impression of Little League umpires.

boyinblue,

Yes, I am sure.

If Rich, or Garth, or Bob Jenkins (or any of a number of other posters who consistently appear to know what they are talking about) says something that you "...recall it was the other way around...", I would strongly encourage you to trust them over your own recollection. Unless, of course, you like being a Bozo umpire. You know, mildly entertaining on occasion, but not really very good.

I am sure because the LL RIM (2004 edition) says:

Now, the last time I "did" LL was in 1968 - as a player. Does it strike you as curious that I know this and you, who alledgedly umpire these games, don't?

JM

Little Boy Blue, stop blowing your horn.
All your apologies are tired and worn.
Before sounding off don't you think you should look
At the posts of veterans, or maybe a rule book
Before engaging your mouth, try putting your brain in gear
And maybe you'll become less of a pain in the rear.


(Apologies to Mother Goose)

OK, I bow to your infinite wisdom in LL games... so ... by the way - what's the running lane for then? Meaning ... if you're right, why even draw the lane at all?

[B]From the FED verbatim
g. 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; or
1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.[/B]

DG--
well I know that you may not like it, but if that ball was thrown as described, IT IS AN OUT FOR INTERFERENCE. I also think you might be over stepping the possible outcomes a little. Also I am refering to upper big boy ball, where this stratagy is to be instructed, not young kids. In court, you would have an exceedingly difficult time proving liability against anyone, since the player was doing something that was against the rules when he ended up injured, due to a play that was a result of the catcher doing his proper job while the runner did not. I'm also sure it would be very difficult to prove what INTENT there was other than to throw the ball to First for the out, which is what the rule is there for. Run where you are supposed to and nothing should happen. Disobey the rules, and things could happen. An umpire who is afraid to make the right call because the player got hurt, is simply a Wuss.

If the runner is 30 feet from the bag when the thrown ball hit the runner it would be a hard sell to call that a quality throw. You live in a dream world if you think someone committing a crime is not capable of receiving a large judgment in front of a judge or jury. I am simply trying to educate someone who obviously does not understand coaching. You don't coach your players to perform in such a way as to possibly injure others when coaching them the right way is the right thing to do. You don't get it, that is clear.

A straight line from the catcher to the base goes through the runner, 30 feet or 70 feet from the bag. Period. You don't get it that playing hard and to win, sometimes means people might get hurt. If they can step out and throw another way, that is optimal, i will agree, but if not, through the runner is the next option. Not throwing it into the outfield. as you try to go over the runner. For example, Nice bunt Just outside the batters box on 3rd base side, Catcher up and to the ball, Runner well in fair territory and has GOOD wheels, what should the catcher do. He should throw it directly at First base which MOST LIKELY is through the runners back.

also Throwing a ball in order to get an out is not a crime. You would have to PROVE the intent of the catcher to hit the runner, and providing a quality throw to First base that hits a runner would throw a big monkey wrench in the plans. Add to that the runner's actions and sorry, That would be a tough case to win. Just having injuries and a thought that he might have does not a victory make.

Also I would like to note, you think one must throw extra hard in order to hit the runner, a simple throw that the runner is impeding is what is needed, same throw one would make in the instance where the runner is in the running lane.

Now suppose your same senario of the player getting hit with the ball, while running in the lane, Falling and subsequent injuries. DO you still have a lawsuit. There is no reason for intent here, and as much proof that there was intent. Well are you still giving those $$$ to the runner???

Grown-up catchers know how to find a lane to throw - usually by taking a side step. That's why you hardly ever see hit runners or interference calls in grown-up ball. Anyone who throws at the runner is untrained or a jerk. And if it's obvious that he threw at the runner . . .

Thank you. You understand what applesauce doesn't. I'm not discussing it anymore with him, he is clueless.

There is a difference between "sometimes people might get hurt" and you coaching kids to try to injure other kids. A coach in Texas is in jail right now for child abuse for coaching one kid to injure another kid. Yes - his situation was far more egregious than what you proscribe, but your attitude that it's OK to coach your players to intentionally hurt other players is quite simply appalling - you should not be allowed to coach (or even be around) kids. The fact that your child abuse may be difficult to prove in court does not make it less of a crime. I know you will never be ... but you SHOULD be ashamed.

3apple -
Rich knows what comes next when you try that cheap crap in big boy ball.Next time that catcher comes to bat.
Bzzzzzzzzzz. Thunk!
And coach, don't even think about going behind my cather during warm-ups.

No BS, man, baseball has ways to take care of themselves. And in adult ball, if a guy runs obviously out of the lane to gain an advantage, HE WILL GET PLUNKED.

Also, note, I have said they need to be taught that the Loob over into the field (a last resort) is not the last resort that should be taught. They need to be taught first to find a lane, the Firstbaseman need to be taught to help the catcher early with an INSIDE or OUTSIDE call, but the last resort isn't a trick shot, that could end up with the runner at second. The last resort is to make a good solid throw to where you would normally find the firstbaseman, and THAT is through the runners back.

Until it becomes a call for simply causing a bad throw, This is the BEST PLAY for the defense to make, when nothing else is easily available.

I love how DG has resorted to namecalling, the last hope for the uneducated.

There is never a last resort that calls for throwing at the runners back.
If F3 is on the inside and marginally stretched his glove is 4' to the inside. If BR has his right foot on the foul line so his entire body is inside the line he's taking at most 30". F2 still has an 18" window to throw to without aiming at the back. That's before he makes a quick slidestep to the inside and creates a great angle. The reality is if BR is that far inside, F3 would simply step to the outside and now F2 has about a 4' window to throw at without coming close to BR. There are times (few as they are) that BR obstructs, but there is never an appropriate time for F2 to aim at BR back.


OK guys, when the going gets tough, lets hurt em.

If there was never a time that this would happen, There would not be a rule prohibiting the runner from doing what he is doing.

"The last resort is to make a good solid throw to where you would normally find the firstbaseman, and THAT is through the runners back. "

Where is this AIMING AT THE RUNNERS BACK.

Interesting point of view for a player. Reprehensible for an umpire.

One applesauce shouldn't call another rotten unless one knows what one is talking about. But then again if you are apple I am orange because I disagree with you on coaching young players to strike their competitors with a thrown baseball on purpose. It's a good thing you are not a coach because you are dangerous.

JERK.

I'm rubber and you're glue

Since you wish to behave like a 5 yr old, I'll respond as such.

:eek: I know they're around here someplace. Where are they?

NOW....

I didn't say there was never obstruction.
I said there was never a reason to throw AT a runners back.
There's a difference between a ball hitting a runner and a fielder throwing at the runner.
Just like there's a difference between incidental contact and malicious contact.

If you feel compelled to throw balls at people then go play kickball or dodgeball

Once again, And I'll Type Slow for you

If the catcher simply cannot, or more likely doesn't have the TIME, to step out and around the runner, instead of lobing the ball into the out field, The CATCHER SHOULD THROW A NORMAL THROW to the FIRSTBASEMAN, in Some cases this will end up being THROUGH the base runner.

He should not Throw At the Runner, but AT FIRSTBASE. The runner just happens to be in the way because he is breaking the rules.

This seems much more reasonable than this:


Tim.

You ARE changing your position on this subject. In post #4 you said "If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call." and later defended this position even after several of us disagreed with this "coaching" style.

Maybe there is hope for you.

Yes in post four I over simplified, I have gone on to repeatedly say throw to the bag through the runner.

I'm sorry you took it that he should go out of his way to hit a runner.

Not to belabor the point. but how else would anyone take: "If the catcher can't make the throw, he should have been taught to hit the runner in the back for the interference call."


I don't see how you can lay blame for a "misunderstanding" at the feet of the reader.

You did not oversimplify, you stated a coaching strategy. Then, you repeatedly said throw the ball to the runner's back and defended this strategy. Go back and read your posts. In #34, for example, you said in upper big boy ball this is a "strategy to be instructed".

You will never be cured until you admit you have a problem. No catcher, at any level, should be coached to throw at a runner. Take a step, find a lane, and throw the ball to F3.

BoyinBlue,

Have you ever considered officiating badminton?

You may not be cut out for baseball.

Just a thought.

JM

Let's examine what you've written...calmy and lgoically.

The runner, you say, can run outside the lane to avoid a fielder fielding the ball, right? So you figure that while he's out side the lane avoiding this fielder fielding the ball, he can be hit by the ball thrown by a fielder without it being interference.

Question. If the fielder the runner is avoiding is fielding the ball, where did the ball come from that hit the runner? And, who threw it?

Now, in case you're tempted to reply that this is the same fielder and the same ball and the fielder threw it after the runner passed him, then the runner really doesn't need to be out of the lane anymore to avoid the fielder, does he?

My God. Take a deep breath and re-read my post, s l o w l y.

If the runner/batter is running on either side of the lane to avoid the fielder fielding the ball, there is no ball to be thrown at him. There is only one ball in the game at a time. Get it yet? Please, think. How can someone throw a ball at him while he is avoiding the fielder fielding the ball????????????

If he ran outside or inside or freaking flew over and is now far enough past the fielder that the fielder can plunk him, then he no longer needs to be out of the running lane. Are you following this yet?

The grassy knoll, of course. :D

(Sigh)

You, know, I have to wonder why I'm stupid enough to keep trying. I can't believe anyone is that fargin' dense unless it's intentional. I had a class last year completely comprised of "alternative school" students and not one of them was as clueless or aggravating.

Time to put Littleboyblue back on the list.

Personally, I'm having second thoughts.

Badminton can be a pretty "fast" game.

Maybe croquet?

JM

No, we're not. Never have been and from what I've seen, never will be. Not the same page, not the same chapter, not even the same book.

Wow. My Acme Troll Sensor's siren is screaming so loudly I can barely hear myself say, "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it...stupid, stupid, stupid."

Good bye LittleBoyBlue.

You owe him an apology for this, Dan.

I simply said I over simplified, that places the blame on me for the misunderstanding, I then knew what I meant by what I was saying, and by not spelling it out (oversimplifying) I lead the reader to TAKE IT a specific way. I have now apopolgised for that and you both found the desire to come on and belittle me, I hope you felt much better having done that.

I personally did not see how throwing to the base through the runner, and throwing at the runner were all that different, hence my poor usage of language. Nor did I think anyone would assume that I meant do not try anything else first. These are MY mistakes. However, even when I spelt things out more clearly you decided not to read what I was writing anymore and simply get emotionally attached. That was YOUR mistake.

It takes Two to tango, I have most definatly taken responsibility for my portion. I have learned from my mistake, and will hopefully not make a similar one in the future. That is how I try to Grow as a human. I hope you can do this in the future too, That would make the world a better place.

Godspeed.

Exactly, they are the same thing, which is why I take exception.
If F2 is throwing 'at the base' he is throwing at the runner for the purpose of drawing the interference. The exact same thing you suggested be taught in big boy ball.
If he's throwing at the base he is not throwing to F3s glove.
When was the last time you saw F3 standing squarely on the bag with his glove at his chest? That is the position he'd have to be in to justify throwing at the bag, or through the runner.
F2 needs to be throwing at F3s glove, which will easily be 4 to 5 feet inside or outside of the bag.
If you believe throwing at a runner to draw an interfence call is part of the game then stick to your guns, if you've had a change of heart then say so, but don't try to blame me or anyone else for misinterpreting your posts. You were quite clear.

Ok obviously my lesson is not learned, By Throwing "at the bag" I mean The terminology of "Throw it to First. " "throw it to Second" I mean to the person as one would any other time they would throw it To the Bag. Throwing at the bag is silly since the you would then be throwing the ball into the dirt as it were.

My point was simply, if all else is not an option, Throw directly to the Firstbaseman as though there were no runner. Not lob the ball into the outfield. This option will most likely be through the runner, in my example of them being fully outside the running lane in fair territory.