Running lane violation?

[David Emerling]

I'm wondering if anybody had any opinions about the controversial play that occurred in game #3 of the Rockies/Phillies NLDS series.

Here's the play:
Umps admit missed call on Utley hit | MLB.com: News

Of course, the controversy seemed to be whether the batted ball hit the batter while in the box (which it clearly did) -and- whether F3 had pulled his foot on the throw (not quite so clear).

But I was surprised there was no lane violation discussion. I know at the MLB level they are not very quick to call this, especially on margin throws.

What if this were a NFHS game. Would you have called it then? Do you think the ball needed to hit the runner to be a violation? In your opinion, was the throw off the mark because the runner was out of the lane? Or, was the runner out of the lane?

Just interested in some opinions on that play.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Rich]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm wondering if anybody had any opinions about the controversial play that occurred in game #3 of the Rockies/Phillies NLDS series.

Here's the play:
Umps admit missed call on Utley hit | MLB.com: News

Of course, the controversy seemed to be whether the batted ball hit the batter while in the box (which it clearly did) -and- whether F3 had pulled his foot on the throw (not quite so clear).

But I was surprised there was no lane violation discussion. I know at the MLB level they are not very quick to call this, especially on margin throws.

What if this were a NFHS game. Would you have called it then? Do you think the ball needed to hit the runner to be a violation? In your opinion, was the throw off the mark because the runner was out of the lane? Or, was the runner out of the lane?

Just interested in some opinions on that play.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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

[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

[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.