FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

Originally Posted by yawetag

8-4-1g: The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

8.4.1c: With R1 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who
fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R1. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path.

In our last training class of the year, several veteran umpires told real-life stories of this case play and that you call them out because "the lines are not part of the lane." The way I read the case play, the lines ARE part of the lane. When I countered their story with the case play, it was responded with "we'll just ask the state interpreter later this week."

So, what's your judgement in this play? Is it different in NCAA or OBR?

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

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey

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.

[ODJ]

Previous interps of the RLV by BR said if BR's left foot was touching completely outside the RL, then violation. If the right foot was touching the FB line when the throw occurs, nothing. Yes, the BR could be violating or legal depending on which foot is touching the ground.

Where my brain fails me (among other things) is if the instance of violation is at time of throw or when the ball passes (or hits) the BR.

[johnnyg08]

Time of pitch...I believe.

[Tim C]

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

"Yes, high school wants a play to be made, but we are not going to penalize them for not making a good play. So, "quality" is not a criteria. Just need to make the throw. We have a lot of catchers/infielders who might sail it over a BR's head, not trying to hit them."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't change much.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

This position seems to be supported by this year's Interps.

From this year's (2010) Rule Interps:

SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g)

[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?