FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[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.

[Tim C]

"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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

The rule says the infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. I can understand calling INT if the lane-violating B/R is directly between 1st base and F2 (or whoever is fielding the ball), and the throw is sailed way over F3's head.

But when the fielder has a clear shot to 1st, the B/R is interfering with neither the throw nor F3 and by rule, the infraction should be ignored. I didn't need an interpretation to call that play correctly. Now it's all F'ed up and I'm probably going to take a lot of crap for enforcing a rule as I have been told to enforce it. Good job.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The rule says the infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. I can understand calling INT if the lane-violating B/R is directly between 1st base and F2 (or whoever is fielding the ball), and the throw is sailed way over F3's head.

But when the fielder has a clear shot to 1st, the B/R is interfering with neither the throw nor F3 and by rule, the infraction should be ignored. I didn't need an interpretation to call that play correctly. Now it's all F'ed up and I'm probably going to take a lot of crap for enforcing a rule as I have been told to enforce it. Good job.

I feel your pain. Once the concept of "quality throw" is on board, it seems unfair for the defense to get a cheap out for RLI based on a crap play.

As you know, however, FED doesn't want to tax its umpires any more than necessary, and judging a "quality throw" on this rare play is taxing (or it is for many in my association, at least). So any throw will do.

Many in my association will cheer for the cheap out, regardless of whether the result is "good baseball." I console myself with the thought that it ain't the worst thing in FEDlandia (hey, that's not a bad thread title...).

[chuckfan1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I feel your pain. Once the concept of "quality throw" is on board, it seems unfair for the defense to get a cheap out for RLI based on a crap play.

As you know, however, FED doesn't want to tax its umpires any more than necessary, and judging a "quality throw" on this rare play is taxing (or it is for many in my association, at least). So any throw will do.

Many in my association will cheer for the cheap out, regardless of whether the result is "good baseball." I console myself with the thought that it ain't the worst thing in FEDlandia (hey, that's not a bad thread title...).

Its not a cheap out, its a deserved out, being "good baseball" by the defense. I understand the "quality" throw thing, but unless F2 shoots it straight up in the air like a rocket, this should be RLI.

Weve all been around long enough to know the BR is trying to get in the way of the throw, block F3, etc... The defense is doing what its supposed to do, field the ball, and get it to first.
And so if F2 zings it 10 feet over F3s head, Maybe its because he was trying to throw it over the guy, the guy who is where he shouldnt be, because hes trying to cause that exact action by the catcher?
We are out there to see the game is played fairly, and neither team gets an unfair advantage....Im thinking that this would qualify, not a cheap out, but a deserved one.
And so you dont penalize the BR for an obvious intentional act, violating a rule, as F2 tried to overcome that? But he overcomes it too much and throws a few feet too high?...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The rule says the infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. I can understand calling INT if the lane-violating B/R is directly between 1st base and F2 (or whoever is fielding the ball), and the throw is sailed way over F3's head.

But when the fielder has a clear shot to 1st, the B/R is interfering with neither the throw nor F3 and by rule, the infraction should be ignored. I didn't need an interpretation to call that play correctly. Now it's all F'ed up and I'm probably going to take a lot of crap for enforcing a rule as I have been told to enforce it. Good job.

According to the POE (from Officials' Quarterly, which I assume is the same as what's in the rules book): "Umpires and coaches must also be aware the just because the BR is outside the line, interference should not be called unless the location of the BR outside the running lane altered the play."

[Tim C]

"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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

Does it at least have to be in the general direction of 1B?