Running Lane Question?

[mbyron]

Runner returns to the base last touched at the time of interference. It's conceivable that R1 could have reached 2B if he had been stealing and the bunt play were slow developing, but generally R1 will return. Certainly the "expected" call is to return the runner.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Running lane interference is an immediate dead ball, but I have to judge that there is interference before I call it. If the throw from F2 hits the BR and then is caught/gloved by F3 for the out, then I will not call interference (because there was none).

There could have been interference that the defense worked their way around, no?

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

Why couldn't there be interference and yet an out?

I'm not a pro, but I was taught an immediate dead ball meant an immediate dead ball.

[johnnyg08]

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of FED OBS. A fielder has to allow "some access" to the base. Slide 35 of the FED powerpoints seem that the fielder has to allow some access...not necessarily the access the the runner desires. FED clinicians?

[johnnyg08]

I would agree with you that a fielder only allowing access to the back of the base...yes, I would agree...OBS.

[DG]

The throw must be a quality throw in OBR. The interference is actually with F3's right to catch the ball, not with the throw itself. A throw over F3's head is not a quality throw and F3's right to catch the ball has not been interfered with.

FED has this situation in the 2004 Interps:

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)

So one might conclude that FED wants to be different, again. Maybe in the interests of safety they don't want the catcher to be penalized for not plunking the runner in the back.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of FED OBS. A fielder has to allow "some access" to the base. Slide 35 of the FED powerpoints seem that the fielder has to allow some access...not necessarily the access the the runner desires. FED clinicians?

Our SI said "access" meant part of the side of the base the toward which the runner was advancing, and not necessarily the part the runner would prefer to touch. (Well, not in those exact words, but that is what he meant.)

[ljdave]

What if in the original situation, the throw is a good one, it doesn't hit B1, but B1 blocks F3s view and F3 doesn't catch it?

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by DG

The throw must be a quality throw in OBR. The interference is actually with F3's right to catch the ball, not with the throw itself. A throw over F3's head is not a quality throw and F3's right to catch the ball has not been interfered with.

FED has this situation in the 2004 Interps:

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)

So one might conclude that FED wants to be different, again. Maybe in the interests of safety they don't want the catcher to be penalized for not plunking the runner in the back.

NCAA is similar in that the AR's state that should the fielder (Almost always F2) be required to change positions to make a throw or the ability to make the throw is impeded by the batter-runner out of the lane then interference may be called. Even has a nice diagram.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

NCAA is similar in that the AR's state that should the fielder (Almost always F2) be required to change positions to make a throw or the ability to make the throw is impeded by the batter-runner out of the lane then interference may be called. Even has a nice diagram.

Yes, it's in the 2006 preseason bulletin. It reads:

It must be a quality throw. It is not interference if the throw had no realistic chance of retiring the batter-runner, unless in the umpire’s judgment the bad throw is a direct result of the batter-runner’s improper position.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Running lane interference is an immediate dead ball, but I have to judge that there is interference before I call it. If the throw from F2 hits the BR and then is caught/gloved by F3 for the out, then I will not call interference (because there was none).

I might say "that's nothing!" after the play to show that I saw that the runner was out of the lane and hit by the ball, but that's about it.

I don't think that there would be much time lag in this particular play (which is a TWP, btw) between the thrown ball touching the BR and the fielder making the play.

What do you do with the play where BR is offline and the throw hits him and cause enough lag in time or ability to make a clean catch? Reward BR for rules violations?

I got a good throw, BR is offline, I got Rs elsewhere, I am looking to keep R stuck to their originating bases.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

There could have been interference that the defense worked their way around, no?

Look at the new FED obstruction interpretation. Even if the runner managed to reach around and touch the back of a bag, if he was "denied access" to that portion of the bag closest to him, we have obstruction.

Why couldn't there be interference and yet an out?

I'm not a pro, but I was taught an immediate dead ball meant an immediate dead ball.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The FED obstruction rule is not an apt comparison, since it's a delayed dead ball. There can be obstruction which, if it doesn't result in an out, we later ignore.

As you point out, running lane interference is an immediate dead ball. So we can't have a play where there's interference and then the defense gets an out.

However, as I pointed out, I still have to judge that there's interference. That judgment is sometimes immediate, for obvious cases, and sometimes takes a second, in borderline cases.

In the TWP I was responding to, the throw deflected off the BR and F3 caught it. I won't call interference here because I don't think it's interference. So it's not correct to describe the case as "interference followed by an out."

In a case of genuine interference, I will kill the play and call it, so the defense still will not make an out (since the play's dead). So again, we will not have interference followed by an out.

Even if I'm very slow to call interference, the play is technically dead at the time of interference, no matter when I call it. So by rule, we cannot have interference followed by an out on this play.

But perhaps I haven't answered your question?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Runner returns to the base last touched at the time of interference.

Time of pitch, actually, unless there's an "Intervening Play." However, there are even conflicting interps. regarding that, as well: is it still "time of pitch" or "time of interference" when an Intervening Play occurs? Decisions, decisions.

Regardless, in the OP, it's time of pitch.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Time of pitch, actually, unless there's an "Intervening Play." However, there are even conflicting interps. regarding that, as well: is it still "time of pitch" or "time of interference" when an Intervening Play occurs? Decisions, decisions.

Regardless, in the OP, it's time of pitch.

Citation please?

Here are a couple to start with: FED 8-2-9 and OBR 2.00 - Interference. In both codes, runners return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

The only code where runners might return to their TOP base is NCAA, which was not relevant to the OP.

[Dave Reed]

Rule 2.00 (Interference) Comment: In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

So in the OP, B/R is interfering by being out of the running lane, and the inteference happens before B/R reached first.

TOP

[mbyron]

Hm. Thanks Dave. That comment was missing from the BRD. Should have looked in the book...