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