another running lane decision
 

During state playoffs last spring. R3, 2 out, ground ball to F-6 which F-6 fumbles around a bit and then makes a bad throw to first which pulls F-3 off the bag toward the plate.

Of course there is a collision and I have the runner safe.

Plate umpire calls time and call B/R out/interference for being out of running lane. Run does not count.

I did not agree but it was U-1 call.

My interpretation of the rule is for throws coming from behind the runner, not errant throws from F-6.

The call had an effect on who went to the state finals as the runner from third scored, but interference negated that run.

In OBR there's a ruling from the PBUC that the throw need not come from the plate area.

day game or night game?

Good thing I've never seen that, cause it would be a cold, cold day before I'd make that call.

Dammit. You beat me.

the answer to your question lies inside your post. i made it big for you. the defense erred when they made a bad throw. the runner should not be called out for a runner's lane violation on an errant throw. it's not his fault F6 threw it up the line.

i'm quick like that.

Well now, I've umpired in some pretty nippley weather before, and I still wouldn't dream of making such a call!:)

You can't penalize the BR because F6 can't throw straight.

WHAT?!?

Umm, a discussion should have ensued between you and your partner so you could have instructed him quietly that he was very, very wrong in making a call like this!

Sorry, I didn't mean it should be applied to this particular play. I was only trying to comment on where the throw originates.

1. UIC can't overrule you. It's your call all the way. By the way you're correct.

2. How did UIC get a playoff game? Most Rookies know this rule. Baseball 101.

PBUC evaluators will tell you that while that is true, it should not be interpreted as meaning the throw can come from anywhere.

The rule came about when the the first base bag straddled the base line. The inside portion "belonged" to the fielder, the outside. The rule was to protect the fielder's opportunity to field a throw from the plate and area between the mound and home, not to necessarily restrict the runner.

The comment from PBUC that "expanded" from where the throw could orginate was meant to include the mound and the areas of infield where the angle of a quality throw could still result in the runner interfering with the opporutnity of the fielder to field the throw.

A direct throw from F4 and most throws from F5 and F6 are still not ingredients to invoke this rule, at least in the mind of the evaluator I spoke with, and is certainly not included in what is taught at proschool.

Here, the runner isn't out for leaving the runner's lane, he could be called out for leaving the baseline while a play is being made on him (unlikely because there was a collision) or for malicious contact in FED/NCAA. The only was I see a runner's lane violation is if it is blatantly obvious to U1 and everyone else in the park. PU should not be splitting hairs here though.

Here is an NCAA bulletin regarding the situation a similar situation. The situation is the first clip.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx71BKXxxN8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx71BKXxxN8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

When CC first reported the ruling he had a major hissy fit about it. The first time it was in the BRD there was considerable "editorial comment" - since removed. The impression I got back then was that the throw could come from anywhere, and I think I remember that there was an additional comment from Fitzpatrick on the order of not giving the runner license to crash into the fielder.

If F3 or F4 is throwing, from beyond the base, to F1 covering, do you not want to protect the fielder?

We're are talking about a running lane violation here, i.e. the runner, by the act of being out of the running lane interfering with the fielder's opportunity to field the ball. You'll need to do a better job of creating a TWP of a throw coming from the outfield side of first being interfered with by a runner on the home side of first.

What TWP? F1 runs to the line to the HP side if 1B and then runs parallel to the line for the last few feet. He does this so he doesn't cross paths with the runner. The throw from F3 comes from the back of the infield. It's a normal, everyday play.

And what....does the runner interfere with the throw?

I've got an issue with the NCAA video, at about 7 minutes into it. They're praising the hustle of the PU to get to the 45 foot mark, but if you watch closely he cuts off the catcher on HIS way down the line. I've been taught, and teach that you let the catcher go, and come in behind him. For RHBs, I'll go to the left of the catcher and follow the batter up the line. For lefties, I'll follow the catcher out. Either way I'd never cut off the catcher like was shown in the clip.

as taught at both umpire schools, clear the catcher to the left. i had multiple issues with the video. if there's some interest from guys on here i'll go through it. if not, i'll just keep my issues to myself.

It's always a good rule of thumb to come out from the left side of the plate. The video is not very good at the mechanic, but the intent was to show the hustle. Remember, this was in the "early" days of NCAA video.

JJ

Remember, we're talking about a runner out of the lane.

Maybe he bumps the pitcher, causing a drop or miss.

Maybe he blocks the quality throw.

The rule does say "interferes with the fielder taking the throw" after all.

You'd call it if the throw came from the plate area would you not?

Exactly. I would call the rule by its intent, even its expanded intent.

Maybe I would call running lane violation if F6 fielded a bunt and threw a perfect strike to F3 and R1 was so far inside the line as to interfere with F3 making the catch. But I would never call it if F6 fielded a ground ball and made a bad throw that pulled F3 into R1's path. Never.

Ok Bobby, other than the umpire not clearing the catcher to the left, what else you got?

I know the incident of a potential pulled foot at 1st worked out, but I can't see how the HC should be involved in that conversation with PU. What if the PU has something different? Certainly he can't honestly talk with BU with HC standing there.

Great. if you're even umpiring one of my games I'll just tell the runner to run inside the 1B line and bump the pitcher just as he's ready to catch the ball, knowing it'll be a non-call from you.

You mean you'll instruct your player to commit intentional interference and not expect a call? I'd expect nothing else from a Rat.

As I've always said, when it comes to wearing two hats, there's a world of difference between a coach who umpires and an umpire who coaches. You keep proving me right.

There's more than one rule in the book, coach.

That would not be a running lane violation, just simple interference on a fielder attempting to catch a batted ball. A BR is even allowed to run out of the running lane if he is doing so to avoid a fielder who is making a play on the ball.

I agree that he should have let the catcher clear. This mechanic was true even before they made the video so I am not sure what being an early video had to do with it.

Maybe I missed the balk there but, I tend to believe the phantom balk, was what got the official in hot water to begin with. HTBT probably. The video did point out how not to handle a situtation though.

Good job on pointing out that BU's should keep there mouths tight unless, 100% sure of a foul off the batter.