The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 06, 2010, 11:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODJ View Post
If F5 charges a ball and throws from inside the mound to first base, and BR is running in fair territory, and F3 must reach toward BR to field the ball. Collision: Do you call INT or OBS?
I suppose you would have to judge if the throw was a quality throw. If it wasn't, then you cannot rule INT. If it was, you could have INT.

Sometimes we just have to umpire.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 06, 2010, 11:43pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43 View Post
In FED, any throw can lead to INT. In NCAA, it still must be a quality throw, but you can judge INT if you feel the throw was altered by the location of the runner.
Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 08:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?
In FED, if the runner caused the bad throw, get the interference.

If it was just a ba throw anyway,then don't.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 09:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Mmmm,

Quote:
"In FED, if the runner caused the bad throw, get the interference.

"If it was just a bad throw anyway,then don't."
Bob, in the video conference Eliot Hopkins told the SRI's that ANY throw would be all that is neccessary. He was clear that quality of the throw had nothing to do with the running lane violation.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 11:04am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
Bob, in the video conference Eliot Hopkins told the SRI's that ANY throw would be all that is neccessary. He was clear that quality of the throw had nothing to do with the running lane violation.
A throw six feet over F3's head?

To that, let me just say "ha ha ha ha ha ha" and get it over with.

A post earlier in the thread asked about F5 throwing one that forces F3 into the runner (out of the lane). This, to me, is a quality throw. A quality throw is not one that is in the chest of the receiver, but merely one that can be fielded well by F3 absent the interference by a runner running outside the lane. Also, if the throw is bad because of the interference (in my judgment) I won't hesitate to call it, either. But any throw? C'mon.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 11:36am
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?
From 2004 Interpretations:

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)
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 11:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Nfhs

Quote:
"A throw six feet over F3's head?

"To that, let me just say "ha ha ha ha ha ha" and get it over with."
Rich, Eliot said: "It is not an umpire judgement if a throw was of quality or not . . . ANY throw, with the batter runner violating the runners lane rule, is all that is neccessay."

One of the viewers asked about a throw 20' over the BR's head and F3. Eliot noted that if the runner was in violation he is out.

T
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 11:44am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
Rich, Eliot said: "It is not an umpire judgement if a throw was of quality or not . . . ANY throw, with the batter runner violating the runners lane rule, is all that is neccessay."

One of the viewers asked about a throw 20' over the BR's head and F3. Eliot noted that if the runner was in violation he is out.

T
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 02:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
Rich, Eliot said: "It is not an umpire judgement if a throw was of quality or not . . . ANY throw, with the batter runner violating the runners lane rule, is all that is neccessay."

One of the viewers asked about a throw 20' over the BR's head and F3. Eliot noted that if the runner was in violation he is out.

T
I'd like to see Eliot put on gear and make that call.

What BS.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 03:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Hmmmm,

Quote:
"I'd like to see Eliot put on gear and make that call."
OK, let's disect this for a second:

The NFHS Baseball Rules Committee is the ONLY rules committee that has a permanent Chairman. All other rules group rotate the chair position. Kyle McNeely is the permanet chair of the rules group.

This "could" lead one to believe that Kyle has replaced "Brad" as being the main voice of baseball rules at the high school level.

Just thinking things through . . .

T

PS: We should all remember that of the four reasons high school baseball are written one is: "Working with poorly trained umpires."
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 05:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
From 2004 Interpretations:

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)
That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 05:57pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.
I inquired about this situation at an association meeting and the answer was, "Yes, the runner must be in the running lane". Just my take on the play.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 06:10pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.
You are correct. I was only posting the one that referred to throwing over F3's head.

From the same 2004 Interps:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception).

It would seem Elliot's take on this appears to differ from the published 2004 Interps. It would also seem that FED wants a throw over F3's head to be ruled interference but other bad throws not.

Last edited by DG; Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 06:18pm.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 07, 2010, 08:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 167
.......I can understand trying to read the throw from F2 in determining if it is truly Running Lane Int...... But if I see the batter-runner out of the lane, and weve all seen it, sometimes they make almost a left turn into fair territory, its pretty safe judgement he is trying to interfere with the throw.
With that, whether F2 throws the ball one foot over, or six feet over F3's head, isnt the cause heavily weighed on the side of INT by BR? Do we automatically determine that since the throw was six feet over F3's head, its more of a bad throw than INT?
Meaning, in watching the play, F2 is trying to get his throw to first, around/over/ the BR? And in seeing him trying to get his throw to first he tries to throw over the BR, because the BR is out of the lane. So what, if F2 lobs it a couple feet higher, the percentages would have to extremely high that the high throw was caused by BR not being where he is supposed to.
This does fall under the sometimes "ya just gotta umpire"...
On these, grab the call by the balls, and call INT.
--The BR is not where he is supposed to be
--In reading the play, we can tell he is trying to interfere. (True, we cant get inside the BR's mind, but come on, we know what it is.
--F2F1 etc is doing what he is supposed to. Fields the ball, and tries to retire BR
--Throws the ball over the heads of BR/F1 due to the INT.....
--Unless the ball goes straight up into the air like a rocket, its INT.

Your honor, the evidence is weighted heavily on the side of the Defense...
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 08, 2010, 02:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey View Post
I know I am a little late on the OP above but believe it or not the same interpretation was given in one of our meetings this year as well. It was near the end of a meeting and I raised a few questions but no one else jumped in on my side. I have an hour ride home from our meetings and the more I thought about what had happened, the more I felt like our clinicians were wrong. I sent an email to them and cc'ed our assignor. They checked with the state office which informed them they were incorrect and the lines were part of the lane.

The new interpretation was given as result of the point of emphasis on the 3ft lane given in the FED book this year. The phrase "the runner must be completely INSIDE the lane" to avoid a possible interference call had thrown them off I think. Ultimately, they corrected themselves to the group and all was well. I am glad I spoke up.

Lawrence
We had our rules meeting today, and I'm sure it was the same slide. Our instructor already knew it was a hot topic, and stated that his interpretation was that the running lane included the lines. He also stated he would be contacting the other 4 interpreters in the state to get a final ruling between the five of them, and would notify us through the organization on how it should be called.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Batter Hit By Throw while running out of three foot zone. LeeBallanfant Baseball 27 Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:22pm
Three-foot running lane question. kfo9494 Softball 4 Wed Jan 21, 2009 05:12pm
ASA 3-foot running lane SRW Softball 9 Tue Feb 19, 2008 04:38pm
3 foot lane benbret Softball 17 Thu Apr 06, 2006 01:25pm
Three Foot Running Lane batterup Baseball 5 Wed Jun 06, 2001 10:06am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1