FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[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?...

[yawetag]

This is a bit off topic, but why does RLI only cover BR to first? It seems like the rule should either apply in all situations or not at all.

Why did the rule come into the game? Were batters purposely bunting in front of the plate and running zig-zags to first?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by yawetag

This is a bit off topic, but why does RLI only cover BR to first? It seems like the rule should either apply in all situations or not at all.

Why did the rule come into the game? Were batters purposely bunting in front of the plate and running zig-zags to first?

Like all rules, the RLI rule tries to strike a balance between offense and defense.

The defense always has to throw around runners who are legally running the bases. But only the BR can deliberately put a batted (bunted) ball directly behind a runner (himself) and set up a kind of interference.

The RLI limits the batter's ability to hinder the defense in this way.

[jkumpire]

Here is the sum total of a conversation with the chair of the FED rules committee. Out of respect to him, I will not put his e-mails on the thread, just a few tidbits:

"..."quality" throw is NOT part of the rule. We have too many instances where the catcher lobs it over the runner or tries to throw around him, etc., trying not to hit him, but still throwing. That is still the runner's creation by violating the rule. So, if the BR is violating the running lane, and a throw is made, we have interference. The only exception is: if the throw is from the foul side and the BR is out of the lane on the fair side, or vice versa."

Further....

"This is NOT a change. This interpretation (any throw is enough for RLI, my addition) has been in place for 25+ years.... Across the nation, this has worked well. Frankly, right now, umpires are doing a lousy job of enforcing this rule and that is why it is a Point of Emphasis. There will be no effort to change it.

Take it FWIW. I disagree with some things he says, but I am not on the rules committee yet.

[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

[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