FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[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?

[mbyron]

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.

[rcaverly]

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.)

[mbyron]

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

8.4.1 SITUATION C: 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, the same as if he were advancing toward
any other base. Since no play is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply.
Had B2 intentionally made contact with the throw, the ball would be dead. B2
would be out and the umpire could call R1 out for B2’s interference. Otherwise,
R1 returns to third base on the interference call.

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.

[Rich]

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?

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.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

your not kidding.. wow ...

[BretMan]

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).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BretMan

... 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.")

[ozzy6900]

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.")

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

The running lane only comes into play when the throw originates from the area of home plate to 1st base. ....

ozzy,

Can you provide a cite that supports your assertion?

I do not believe it is true.

JM

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by BretMan

. . . a batter-runner is considered to be outside the lane when his foot is on the ground entirely outside the lines. . . . 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)

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

ozzy,

Can you provide a cite that supports your assertion?

I do not believe it is true.

JM

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

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

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.