Running lane violation?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Nope. The throw was not put there, IMO, because of the location of the runner.

That can never be known with certainty - but I think the location of the runner very likely did have an effect on the throw. Even the announcers thought so - not that the announcers know everything.

Let me ask you this then: If you did think the runner affected the throw, would you have called a lane violation - keeping in mind the ball never struck the runner?

I think it's unfortunate, but understood why the ball hitting Utley was missed. I also think Kulpa made a great call at first. Stop action, the foot was clearly off the bag and it was a result of moving for the throw, so why give anything there?

I agree - I think it is completely understandable that this was missed by the umpires. If you're not 100% sure, you have to assume that it did not hit the batter. In cases of uncertainty, that has to be the default call.

I've made several calls like that over the years where, in the back of my mind, I fully understood that I could have been wrong. But I simply didn't see it and my partner didn't either. And that's usually what I have to tell the coach when he comes out to complain. I don't tell him that it didn't hit the batter, I simply say I didn't see the ball hit the batter.

What else can you do?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[btdt]

My memory is the book says the lane violation has to do with opportunity to "catch" or receive the throw. Not throw it.

[RPatrino]

Did you see a running lane violation on this play?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Did you see a running lane violation on this play?

By MLB standards, I would have to say NO.

By NFHS standards, I would say YES. However, I'm going to have to recheck the most recent NFHS interpretations as they have waivered over the years on this issue.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[MrUmpire]

The action of the batter easily disguised the ball touching his leg. It happens.

No running lane violation. The runner did not, IMO, affect F3's ability to receive the throw.

R3 definitely off the bag. Good "safe" call.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

No running lane violation. The runner did not, IMO, affect F3's ability to receive the throw.

There's two parts to successfully receiving a throw as a first baseman:
1) actually catching the ball, and
2) doing so in a manner to be able to keep your foot on the bag.

I think an argument could be made that the reason F3 wasn't able to keep his foot on the bag was because of the throw. And - the reason the throw was of poor quality was because of F1's attempt to get the ball around the runner who was in-the-way and out-of-the-lane.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Like I said, I fully realize that this is a very rare call at the MLB level and that it usually requires something egregious.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

There's two parts to successfully receiving a throw as a first baseman:
1) actually catching the ball, and
2) doing so in a manner to be able to keep your foot on the bag.

I think an argument could be made that the reason F3 wasn't able to keep his foot on the bag was because of the throw. And - the reason the throw was of poor quality was because of F1's attempt to get the ball around the runner who was in-the-way and out-of-the-lane.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Like I said, I fully realize that this is a very rare call at the MLB level and that it usually requires something egregious.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The quality of the throw is not protected. The rule was devised when the foul line split the bag. It is intended still to protect F3's catch of the ball.

If the throw had been on line, then the B/R would have interfered with the catch. Not the case here.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Did you see a running lane violation on this play?

No, I don't. As he entered the 45' line, it looks like he has one foot outside the line before the throw. After that he is within the line on every step, so no, no lane violation. On the line is within the lane. Street tried to go outside with his throw, but had very little time to gain any kind of an angle for the throw, throwing over the runner. Even if he had hit him in the back, at the time of the throw/impact, it looks like he would have been within the lane.

[Paul L]

OBR 6.05(k): A batter is out when . . . he runs outside [the running lane] and . . . interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.

NFHS 8-4-1-g: The batter-runner is out when he runs outside the three-foot running lane . . ., while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or 1. This infraction is ignored . . . if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

BRD 273 says that the runner may not interfere by crashing the fielder at first. It also says that all codes hold that the batterrunner is not inside the lane if either foot is outside the lane.

So here, let's say the umpire adjudges that it was a quality throw because it could be caught within reach of the bag, and that the fielder pulled his foot in order to avoid a collision with the rogue batter-runner. Must the fielder take the hit? Does the neighborhood play concept apply?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Paul L

OBR 6.05(k): A batter is out when . . . he runs outside [the running lane] and . . . interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.

NFHS 8-4-1-g: The batter-runner is out when he runs outside the three-foot running lane . . ., while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or 1. This infraction is ignored . . . if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

BRD 273 says that the runner may not interfere by crashing the fielder at first. It also says that all codes hold that the batterrunner is not inside the lane if either foot is outside the lane.

So here, let's say the umpire adjudges that it was a quality throw because it could be caught within reach of the bag, and that the fielder pulled his foot in order to avoid a collision with the rogue batter-runner. Must the fielder take the hit? Does the neighborhood play concept apply?

I don't believe the "neighborhood play" has ever applied to first base, at lease not by professional umpires and trained amateur umpires.

If the runner doesn't interfere, how could you call interference? I don't know of an "anticipated interference rule" or any interp that follows a "runner would of if the fielder wouldn't of."

[Paul L]

Upon further review, I'd have to agree the batter-runner got back into the running lane by the time he and the throw got to first (and PU was checking it out) and that the throw caused the fielder, who was set up for a foul-side throw, to pull his foot. Good call, blue, and exciting baseball.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Upon further review, I'd have to agree the batter-runner got back into the running lane by the time he and the throw got to first (and PU was checking it out) and that the throw caused the fielder, who was set up for a foul-side throw, to pull his foot. Good call, blue, and exciting baseball.

I think you may be right. I looked at it again and I think he may have got back within in the lane in time.

But, as an academic exericise, let's say he did not.

Would you consider a lane violation in that case - even if the ball doesn't hit the batter-runner?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP 64]

If the 1st baseman had been on the foul side of first, the throw probably should have been easier for the ump to call?
If the pitcher had hit the runner in the back, the call should have been "OUT" for a running lane violation. As it happened, the batter/runner was not hit and the pitcher had to throw over top of the runner. Result: safe!
As far as the batter being hit in the knee with the ball, just one of those things NO ONE saw!
The best team won that night & that series.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP 64

The best team won that night & that series.

The series isn't over yet.

[DG]

No violation in FED or OBR, that I can see. Had he been hit by the throw farther from 1b, say 5 or 10', I think we have RLV in both. Had he been hit as he stepped toward the bag with his last step, as the ball arrived, then NO RLV in either, since the bag is in fair territory and that is the one place he can be, to step on the bag. Since he was not hit, and fielder caught the ball, he did not interfere.

There is a FED interp that says if the fielder throws over F3 head due to runner out of running lane, then call RLV.