FED - Three-Foot Running Lane
 

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 sincerely hope that your state interpreter told the "veterans" that they were wrong.

The lines are part of the lane in every rule code.

You did not completely quote the NFHS case book play 8.4.1c. It specifically states the reason this play is not ruled as interference by the batter-runner, to wit: "Since no play was being made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g [running lane interference] does not apply."

There is no difference in OBR (or NCAA, the last time I looked.)

I agree that 8.4.1c is potentially confusing. Here it is:

So, to the OP: this case is not what you want to quote to support your position about the lane lines. This case play denies "running lane interference" because the play is on R1, not B2 -- the ruling is NOT based on the fact that B2 is in the lane.

The case play also does not support the OP's "veterans": if B2 deliberately interferes with a thrown ball in this play, he will be guilty of garden variety INT, not running lane interference. Again, the position of his feet is irrelevant in that case.

The rules support you want is 8-4-1g(2), which states that "The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line." This provision entails that a runner stepping on the line is in the lane.

The running lane only applies on balls thrown to first base. All codes.

Jeez, the FED could really get with the times and write their plays normally. I had to read the damned thing 3 times to figure out the R1, B2 nonsense.

your not kidding.. wow ...

The three-foot running lane was a point of emphasis in our FED state rules interpretation last night. The presenter noted that a batter-runner is considered to be outside the lane when his foot is on the ground entirely outside the lines. That is supported by rule (8-4-1g(2)).

Treat the "foot on the ground entirely outside the lines" the same as a batter hitting the ball with a foot touching the lines of the batter's box (he's not "out of the box" unless his foot is entirely outside the lines) or a batted ball touching a foul line (if it touches any part of the line it's fair, if it's entirely outside the foul line it's foul).

You're right, of course, but your statement could be misleading.

A batted ball need not be touching the line to be fair: it's fair if most of the ball is on the foul side of the line, but part of the ball is OVER (that is, above) the line when it's touched or settles. (The reference is 2-5-1f, which uses the expression "on or over fair territory.")

The running lane only comes into play when the throw originates from the area of home plate to 1st base. In the OP, F3 fielded the ball beyond 1st base and threw to f2. The running lane does not come into play here at all.

Settling "on or over" fair territory is only in the NCAA rules. Both OBR and FED require the ball to settle ON fair territory to be fair.

NCAA: 2.27
OBR: 2.00 FAIR BALL
FED: 2-5-1-a

I never realized this before looking it up just now. I have not heard of interpretations to the contrary.

That thought crossed my mind. I just figured that my truncated description of "fair/foul" would make for a simplier analogy than going into detail with all of the intricacies of the "fair/foul" rule.

Plus, I was aware of the slight difference written into the OBR, FED and NCAA rules about a batted ball being "on or over" fair territory (it's in the Childress BRD) and wanted to avoid that possible tangent.

I guess that didn't work! :D

ozzy,

Can you provide a cite that supports your assertion?

I do not believe it is true.

JM

But BR's foot does not have to be on the ground when the throw hits him, right? If BR's foot is in the air at the time the throw hits him, I look for the last and next placement of the left foot (assuming a fairside violation). If either is entirely on the fair side of the foul line, BR is out of the lane at the time of the possible interference.

Also, I assume ozzy is focusing on the requirement that the throw must be to a fielder at first. It need not come from the home plate area.

PBUC ruled the throw can come from anywhere. CC was POed but reported it in the BRD

OBR says "on or over" for balls bounding past 1st/3rd and for when first touched - for BOTH fair an foul. It just says "on" for a settled ball - for BOTH fair and foul.

Based on the concept that if any part of the ball touches 1st ot 3rd or a foul pole it is a fair ball, then the "on or over" must logicaly apply to a settled ball being fair if on OR OVER.

Based on the rule, "on or over" does not logically apply to a settled ball. I imagine that's why it is included it in the BRD.

I seem to recall Evans teaching "on or over" for a settled ball. He made a point of it, in fact.

Still, it was a few years ago, and my memory isn't what it once was...

I seem to remember that too. He had half the class 15 feet fair and the other half 15 feet foul and had everyone call it at once.

Yes, on or over is the OBR interp for settled balls. If you stand from the pitcher's mound, you may see a bit of dirt, but it could still be a fair ball.

Of course the logic applies

Imagine this.

A ball is settled 1/16" short of 1B (not touching it) but only 1/4" of the ball is over fair territory and none of it is touching fair territory. Is it fair or foul?

If you move it the 1/16" so it IS touching 1B then it is a fair ball by rule, even though only 1/4" of it is over fair teritory.

Therefore it makes sense to call it fair for the settled but not touching ball.

Imagine this:

A batted ball is leaving the playing field, Only 1/32" of it is over fair territory, but that causes it to hit the foul pole. It's a fair ball because it hit the pole even though only a small portion of it was fair. Apply the same thought to a settled ball.

That makes sense (finally).

Sorry for the delay here. I am aware of the PBUC's opinion and I have never agreed with it. The 3 ft lane was designed to keep the BR from interfering with the throw from F2 to F3 (when it was originally written) because it was common practice for the BR to watch where F3 was setting up and get between him and F2. That is why the rule was originally written.

Since then, the rule has been played with to include throws from anywhere. How in the world does the BR interfere with a throw from F4 to F3 if BR is not in the running lane? In 30 years, I have never called such nonsense and I have never had an argument. 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.

I know that you and others will argue and by all means go ahead. I have never called nor will I ever call a BR out of the running lane unless he actually interferes with the throw coming from behind him!

Because of the angles involved, it's nigh unto impossible to interfere with a throw from anywhere other than from behind. That's why you only see it called on throws from behind.

However, that doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't call it on a throw from elsewhere if, somehow, a runner managed to interfere.

See, we agree with the spirit and the intent, but I understand what you are saying. If F5 charging down the line to field a soft grounder makes a throw from say, even with the mound, we would have a situation that requires the running lane to come into play. This throw is, in fact, coming from behind the BR.

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

Actually, the rule was written so that the BR could not intentionally crash the 1st baseman causing him to drop the ball, as he is legally allowed to do at other bases. Back in the day, the foul line split 1st base in half, so half was fair, half was foul. That is why the BR was required to stay within the lines the entire time. When 1st base was moved entirely into fair territory, they failed to amend the rule so that the BR could legally leave the runner's lane in order to touch first base. Now, as long as the BR has legally run within the lane, he is allowed to leave the lane in order to touch first without being in jeopardy of being called out for interference. He can leave the lane once he is in the vicinity of the bag, usually a stride or two, or another common interp is once he has reached the cutout. In OBR, for interference to be called, the throw must be a quality throw. In FED, any throw can lead to INT. In NCAA, it still must be a quality throw, but you can judge INT if you feel the throw was altered by the location of the runner.

After posting this in haste, I should mention that this rule was also intended to keep the BR from zig-zagging down the line in order to interfere with a throw to first base. Sorry Ozzy.

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.

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?

Sounds (reads) like interference to me, assuming BR was in fair territory the entire time (and not just on his approach to the base).

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.

Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?

In FED, if the runner caused the bad throw, get the interference.

If it was just a ba throw anyway,then don't.

Mmmm,
 

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.

From 2004 Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

Nfhs
 

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.

I'd like to see Eliot put on gear and make that call.

What BS.

Hmmmm,
 

OK, let's disect this for a second:

The NFHS Baseball Rules Committee is the ONLY rules committee that has a permanent Chairman. All other rules group rotate the chair position. Kyle McNeely is the permanet chair of the rules group.

This "could" lead one to believe that Kyle has replaced "Brad" as being the main voice of baseball rules at the high school level.

Just thinking things through . . .

T

PS: We should all remember that of the four reasons high school baseball are written one is: "Working with poorly trained umpires."

That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.

I inquired about this situation at an association meeting and the answer was, "Yes, the runner must be in the running lane". Just my take on the play.

You are correct. I was only posting the one that referred to throwing over F3's head.

From the same 2004 Interps:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception).

It would seem Elliot's take on this appears to differ from the published 2004 Interps. It would also seem that FED wants a throw over F3's head to be ruled interference but other bad throws not.

.......I can understand trying to read the throw from F2 in determining if it is truly Running Lane Int...... But if I see the batter-runner out of the lane, and weve all seen it, sometimes they make almost a left turn into fair territory, its pretty safe judgement he is trying to interfere with the throw.
With that, whether F2 throws the ball one foot over, or six feet over F3's head, isnt the cause heavily weighed on the side of INT by BR? Do we automatically determine that since the throw was six feet over F3's head, its more of a bad throw than INT?
Meaning, in watching the play, F2 is trying to get his throw to first, around/over/ the BR? And in seeing him trying to get his throw to first he tries to throw over the BR, because the BR is out of the lane. So what, if F2 lobs it a couple feet higher, the percentages would have to extremely high that the high throw was caused by BR not being where he is supposed to.
This does fall under the sometimes "ya just gotta umpire"...
On these, grab the call by the balls, and call INT.
--The BR is not where he is supposed to be
--In reading the play, we can tell he is trying to interfere. (True, we cant get inside the BR's mind, but come on, we know what it is.
--F2F1 etc is doing what he is supposed to. Fields the ball, and tries to retire BR
--Throws the ball over the heads of BR/F1 due to the INT.....
--Unless the ball goes straight up into the air like a rocket, its INT.

Your honor, the evidence is weighted heavily on the side of the Defense...

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.

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.

Time of pitch...I believe.

Official
 

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

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

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)

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

No problem here, on Saturday I had to explain to top coaches that stepping into dead ball territory with both feet after a catch is a dead ball, 12 players are not allowed in live ball territory when a run is scored and the batter is out for interference with R1 and no outs, on a steal of second.

I am completely confident that they will understand that even though the opposing catchers arm sucks, their honor roll scholar is out for not being in the lane.

I am fully expecting at least one of them to say, "Oh yea, Situation #7 of this years Rule Interps, Gee thanks.":rolleyes:

I suppose I can manage to call it. But what annoys me is that the FED wants this called with no judgment involved because umpires spent years simply not calling it. Hell, I've ended a game on RLI.

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...).

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."

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?...

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.

Bad news folks
 

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.

My .02
 

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.

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.

Hey,
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Agreed, but under FED (according to T), the runner is presumed to have interfered with the throw if the runner is (approximately) in a line between F2 and F3

That's how I understand the "clarification" in the FED interps. It's the "any throw if the B/R is out of the lane" concept I have a problem with.

To the rediculous side
 

So a running lane violation is not limited to throws from the HP area.

A throw from F2 ten feet over F3's head with B/R out of the lane is interference because the quality of the throw is not a criteria for RLV.

Then when F4 (in normal position) throws ten feet over F3's head with B/R out of the lane, we have interference for the same reason.

I know it sounds rediculous, but where is the distinction.

This is what I got on Saturday
 

I still need clarification if I outstepped my bounds or not. Truly it entailing if we are talking about the F3 - F2 throw or if it can be any throw.

This was Freshman ball so I tend to think I used this as a learning lesson on the field and now my continual learning off the field.

The ball is hit to F5 who charge slightly and make a ok throw to first base. First has to move towards home to make the catch but does have to move off first base to make the play. As he is stretching, this entire body is in fair territory, he nevers reaches back into the running lane.

BR never enters the RL and arrives at the first baseman at approximately the same time as the ball. A nice size (non-mailicious) collision occurs.

There is no interpretation needed whether or not he was on the line or not as he was a good 8"-12" inside fair territory and never established himself in the running lane. Anyhow, I got the out and a very mild *** chewing as the coach was more interesting with arguing "when was he player was suppose to crossover to hit the bag and should we get a dual bag at 1st like softball.

Anyhow, I am hearing some would not call it because it was a F5-F3 throw. I am seeking clarification on that aspect. However, my question/ point/ example should also show that this a safety issue that we can avoid going forward if we mandate them getting in the RL on any throw provided the fielder maintains position on the fair side and does not go back into the RL.

Thoughts?

I believe the throw must come from behind the B/R (HP area).

Ick!
 

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

that pesky step and a half
 

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?