FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

PBUC ruled the throw can come from anywhere. CC was POed but reported it in the BRD

Sorry for the delay here. I am aware of the PBUC's opinion and I have never agreed with it. The 3 ft lane was designed to keep the BR from interfering with the throw from F2 to F3 (when it was originally written) because it was common practice for the BR to watch where F3 was setting up and get between him and F2. That is why the rule was originally written.

Since then, the rule has been played with to include throws from anywhere. How in the world does the BR interfere with a throw from F4 to F3 if BR is not in the running lane? In 30 years, I have never called such nonsense and I have never had an argument. The only time I get arguments are when the throw comes from the plate area and the coach doesn't see what I see when I call the interference.

I know that you and others will argue and by all means go ahead. I have never called nor will I ever call a BR out of the running lane unless he actually interferes with the throw coming from behind him!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Sorry for the delay here. I am aware of the PBUC's opinion and I have never agreed with it. The 3 ft lane was designed to keep the BR from interfering with the throw from F2 to F3 (when it was originally written) because it was common practice for the BR to watch where F3 was setting up and get between him and F2. That is why the rule was originally written.

Since then, the rule has been played with to include throws from anywhere. How in the world does the BR interfere with a throw from F4 to F3 if BR is not in the running lane? In 30 years, I have never called such nonsense and I have never had an argument. The only time I get arguments are when the throw comes from the plate area and the coach doesn't see what I see when I call the interference.

I know that you and others will argue and by all means go ahead. I have never called nor will I ever call a BR out of the running lane unless he actually interferes with the throw coming from behind him!

Because of the angles involved, it's nigh unto impossible to interfere with a throw from anywhere other than from behind. That's why you only see it called on throws from behind.

However, that doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't call it on a throw from elsewhere if, somehow, a runner managed to interfere.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Because of the angles involved, it's nigh unto impossible to interfere with a throw from anywhere other than from behind. That's why you only see it called on throws from behind.

However, that doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't call it on a throw from elsewhere if, somehow, a runner managed to interfere.

See, we agree with the spirit and the intent, but I understand what you are saying. If F5 charging down the line to field a soft grounder makes a throw from say, even with the mound, we would have a situation that requires the running lane to come into play. This throw is, in fact, coming from behind the BR.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Sorry for the delay here. I am aware of the PBUC's opinion and I have never agreed with it. The 3 ft lane was designed to keep the BR from interfering with the throw from F2 to F3 (when it was originally written) because it was common practice for the BR to watch where F3 was setting up and get between him and F2. That is why the rule was originally written.

Since then, the rule has been played with to include throws from anywhere. How in the world does the BR interfere with a throw from F4 to F3 if BR is not in the running lane? In 30 years, I have never called such nonsense and I have never had an argument. The only time I get arguments are when the throw comes from the plate area and the coach doesn't see what I see when I call the interference.

I know that you and others will argue and by all means go ahead. I have never called nor will I ever call a BR out of the running lane unless he actually interferes with the throw coming from behind him!

Actually, the rule was written so that the BR could not intentionally crash the 1st baseman causing him to drop the ball, as he is legally allowed to do at other bases. Back in the day, the foul line split 1st base in half, so half was fair, half was foul. That is why the BR was required to stay within the lines the entire time. When 1st base was moved entirely into fair territory, they failed to amend the rule so that the BR could legally leave the runner's lane in order to touch first base. Now, as long as the BR has legally run within the lane, he is allowed to leave the lane in order to touch first without being in jeopardy of being called out for interference. He can leave the lane once he is in the vicinity of the bag, usually a stride or two, or another common interp is once he has reached the cutout. In OBR, for interference to be called, the throw must be a quality throw. 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.

After posting this in haste, I should mention that this rule was also intended to keep the BR from zig-zagging down the line in order to interfere with a throw to first base. Sorry Ozzy.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

The only time I get arguments are when the throw comes from the plate area and the coach doesn't see what I see when I call the interference.

Or, when coach simply does not know the rule or argues it nonetheless. I had a textbook case last weekend and coach knew full well the batter was out of the running lane and argued anyway. Then, he wanted to argue that the runner on 2b should get 3b because he was there already when the catcher's throw hit the runner. He had crossed the plate while the defense was chasing the ball that hit the batter.

[ODJ]

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?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by ODJ

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?

Or maybe nothing?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ODJ

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?

Sounds (reads) like interference to me, assuming BR was in fair territory the entire time (and not just on his approach to the base).

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by ODJ

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.