FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[jkumpire]

I don't want to dig deep into a discussion since I did not ask to post all of our e-mails on this. I do respect the leadership of the rules committee and what they are trying to do.

But, supposedly the idea of: any throw + BR out of lane = RLI being the FED law of the land for 25 years is not how was I taught, nor how I read the rule. Is that how you guys have called this for 25+ years?

"It has worked well across the nation," leaves me scratching my head too. Since the reason this is a POE is that it is not being called correctly, I am at a loss. If they want RLI every time there is a throw to 1B by F2 and BR is not in the lane I can call it that way, but I am not happy about it.

[dash_riprock]

Our SRI is unaware of any new interpretation removing judgment from running lane interference.

The sole 2010 NFHS Interp. dealing with RLI clarifies that there must be a throw for there to be INT, and the throw need not hit the runner. It doesn't say ANY throw causes a violation.

If that were true, it would be a rules change (the 2nd clause of 8-4-1-g-1 would need to be deleted), and there were no changes to that rule for 2010. I am comfortable calling it the same way I have been calling it.

[Tim C]

Hi Dash,

Just a quick question:

Was your State Rule Interpreter able to attend the NFHS Video Conference where Eliott explained the rule?

Thanks,

T

[jicecone]

I have known this interpretation about Fed RLI for many years and have NEVER had to call it nor have I agreed with it. I am most positive that had the situation come up, there would most definitly not be an argument from a coach that knew of the interpretation but, was only trying to get an out for his team.

In fact, I would say that a majority of officials would not even call it if it happened in their game, because it so seldom happens, that it is not quickly reconized at the time of infraction. Kind of like the first balk you missed, because you still weren't sure what the pitcher actually did or that it was even a balk. Having said that, there is no excuse not to call it when applicable.

One thing for sure though having worked in several (many) locations, there are interpreters out there that feel that because of there position, they have the right to make the official interpretation of the rules. Bending them how they see fit is just part of their position.

To the point: Never quit studying the rules and learning about your profession on your own. Yes there are certain assoiciation rules and regulations that all should comply with however, never compromise the rules of the game because of someone's else ignorance.

[dash_riprock]

T,

I believe not.

N.B. All information I have concerning our SRI is third-hand. Snow prevented him from addressing our association in person this year. I asked my HS association interpreter to question him about the "any throw causes INT" concept that came out of that video conference, and the report back to me was the SRI was unaware of it.

BTW, our SRI (NY) is Ron Gabriel. First and foremost, Ron is an umpire. His presentations are engaging and provocative (and, at times, very funny), and he is meticulous about explaining how to apply the rules exactly as intended by the Rules Committee. He is first rate. I am positive that if he knew of something this significant, he would have mentioned (no, emphasized) it to my interpreter.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I received the following this morning form the NFHS Rules Committee Chair:

Quality of the throw is not a [criterion], but the B/R must interfere with either the throw or the fielding of it for there to be a violation.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Quality of the throw is not a [criterion], but the B/R must interfere with either the throw or the fielding of it for there to be a violation.

No, the batter runner must either be in the lane or out of the lane during the throw.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No, the batter runner must either be in the lane or out of the lane during the throw.

Huh? Of course there is no violation if the B/R is in the running lane (unless the interference is intentional). This entire discussion is predicated on the B/R running outside the lane.

See 8-4-1-g-1. If the B/R has not interfered with the throw or the catch, what are you penalizing him for?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Huh? Of course there is no violation if the B/R is in the running lane (unless the interference is intentional). This entire discussion is predicated on the B/R running outside the lane.

See 8-4-1-g-1. If the B/R has not interfered with the throw or the catch, what are you penalizing him for?

Agreed, but under FED (according to T), the runner is presumed to have interfered with the throw if the runner is (approximately) in a line between F2 and F3

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed, but under FED (according to T), the runner is presumed to have interfered with the throw if the runner is (approximately) in a line between F2 and F3

That's how I understand the "clarification" in the FED interps. It's the "any throw if the B/R is out of the lane" concept I have a problem with.

[bluehair]

So a running lane violation is not limited to throws from the HP area.

A throw from F2 ten feet over F3's head with B/R out of the lane is interference because the quality of the throw is not a criteria for RLV.

Then when F4 (in normal position) throws ten feet over F3's head with B/R out of the lane, we have interference for the same reason.

I know it sounds rediculous, but where is the distinction.

[tbird2k]

I still need clarification if I outstepped my bounds or not. Truly it entailing if we are talking about the F3 - F2 throw or if it can be any throw.

This was Freshman ball so I tend to think I used this as a learning lesson on the field and now my continual learning off the field.

The ball is hit to F5 who charge slightly and make a ok throw to first base. First has to move towards home to make the catch but does have to move off first base to make the play. As he is stretching, this entire body is in fair territory, he nevers reaches back into the running lane.

BR never enters the RL and arrives at the first baseman at approximately the same time as the ball. A nice size (non-mailicious) collision occurs.

There is no interpretation needed whether or not he was on the line or not as he was a good 8"-12" inside fair territory and never established himself in the running lane. Anyhow, I got the out and a very mild *** chewing as the coach was more interesting with arguing "when was he player was suppose to crossover to hit the bag and should we get a dual bag at 1st like softball.

Anyhow, I am hearing some would not call it because it was a F5-F3 throw. I am seeking clarification on that aspect. However, my question/ point/ example should also show that this a safety issue that we can avoid going forward if we mandate them getting in the RL on any throw provided the fielder maintains position on the fair side and does not go back into the RL.

Thoughts?

[dash_riprock]

I believe the throw must come from behind the B/R (HP area).

[Tim C]

"I believe the throw must come from behind the B/R (HP area)."

Dash:

I worked parts of six decades of baseball. For all those years I was taught EXACTLY what you have written.

Two years ago someone (that is not meant to be disrespectful, I simply don't remember who) posted an interpretation that said ANY throw that pulls F3 into the line is a possible RLV.

My problem with that ruling is that pesky "step and a half" that the BR is allowed to come inside to touch the base.

T

[bluehair]

I think it'd be hard to sell a RLV in that last step also. But should there be a distinction between someone who came out of the lane in the last step and a half and someone who never was in the lane?