FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[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

[jicecone]

I have known this interpretation about Fed RLI for many years and have NEVER had to call it nor have I agreed with it. I am most positive that had the situation come up, there would most definitly not be an argument from a coach that knew of the interpretation but, was only trying to get an out for his team.

In fact, I would say that a majority of officials would not even call it if it happened in their game, because it so seldom happens, that it is not quickly reconized at the time of infraction. Kind of like the first balk you missed, because you still weren't sure what the pitcher actually did or that it was even a balk. Having said that, there is no excuse not to call it when applicable.

One thing for sure though having worked in several (many) locations, there are interpreters out there that feel that because of there position, they have the right to make the official interpretation of the rules. Bending them how they see fit is just part of their position.

To the point: Never quit studying the rules and learning about your profession on your own. Yes there are certain assoiciation rules and regulations that all should comply with however, never compromise the rules of the game because of someone's else ignorance.

[dash_riprock]

T,

I believe not.

N.B. All information I have concerning our SRI is third-hand. Snow prevented him from addressing our association in person this year. I asked my HS association interpreter to question him about the "any throw causes INT" concept that came out of that video conference, and the report back to me was the SRI was unaware of it.

BTW, our SRI (NY) is Ron Gabriel. First and foremost, Ron is an umpire. His presentations are engaging and provocative (and, at times, very funny), and he is meticulous about explaining how to apply the rules exactly as intended by the Rules Committee. He is first rate. I am positive that if he knew of something this significant, he would have mentioned (no, emphasized) it to my interpreter.

[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

[bluehair]

I think it'd be hard to sell a RLV in that last step also. But should there be a distinction between someone who came out of the lane in the last step and a half and someone who never was in the lane?