FED 8-4-1g Interpretation

[mrm21711]

Question,

8-4-1g reads, in part: "A runner is out...if he runs outside the three-foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base."

My question revolves around the term "being fielded" included in this wording. What is this interpreted to mean? We know that the running lane and potential violations only relate to a ball being thrown to 1B. I notice the OBR reference, 6.05k, uses the term "fielded" as well.

[dash_riprock]

It applies when the throw is coming from an area behind the B/R (plate area). A "quality throw" is not required for a violation to occur.

[johnnyg08]

A quality throw is not part of the rule...but the rule protects F3...I think we need to use common sense when interpreting this play. There was a thread around this rule earlier this year that pretty much stated similar things.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

A quality throw is not part of the rule...but the rule protects F3...I think we need to use common sense when interpreting this play. There was a thread around this rule earlier this year that pretty much stated similar things.

Yes, the fact that under NFHS, a fielder does not have to make a "quality throw" to 1B has been discussed here before. Im curious about the term "fielded" in the rule because the NFHS rule says the word "throw" and we know that the 1B running lane and any violations are only on a throw to 1B, not on a fielded ball.

[johnnyg08]

Even though I know the rule, I'm going to have a tough time calling runner lane interference on a throw that is completely air-mailed to F3 from F2. I can't go into a game knowing exactly how I'm going to call the play w/o seeing it first. I know the argument will be that if the runner was where he was supposed to be F2 wouldn't have made such a poor throw...so I guess I have to be prepared to make the call.

I suppose the best was to get rid of a bad rule will be to enforce it huh?

[pastordoug]

Are you suggesting that just the act of "fielding" the ball without a throw to first would constitute an out with the runner being in violation of the three=foot running lane?

Is this because of the word "or?"

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Even though I know the rule, I'm going to have a tough time calling runner lane interference on a throw that is completely air-mailed to F3 from F2. I can't go into a game knowing exactly how I'm going to call the play w/o seeing it first. I know the argument will be that if the runner was where he was supposed to be F2 wouldn't have made such a poor throw...so I guess I have to be prepared to make the call.

I suppose the best was to get rid of a bad rule will be to enforce it huh?

Problem is that FED says that ANY throw is covered.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Problem is that FED says that ANY throw is covered.

Yes, you're right. By rule, I suppose we enforce it that way...it just seems too black and white for that type of play...but if that's how they want it called then we should call it that way until they change the rule. Some FED clinicians for the state do want us to judge quality of the throw though...which seems contradictory.

[DG]

I am familiar with the FED interp that says it is RLV if F2 throws the ball over F3's head, but not familiar with others that say other non-quality throws are the same. So if BR is running in fair territory left of the running lane on a dropped 3rd strike that gets away from the catcher to his right and he plugs the runner 15' from the base with F3 having no chance at a play, FED wants this called RLV? I need to see a case play or interp cited on that, or similar non-quality throws that do not involve throwing over F3's head because BR is in direct line between F2 and F3, and out of running lane.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

Yes, the fact that under NFHS, a fielder does not have to make a "quality throw" to 1B has been discussed here before. Im curious about the term "fielded" in the rule because the NFHS rule says the word "throw" and we know that the 1B running lane and any violations are only on a throw to 1B, not on a fielded ball.

The runner can interfere with a throw or he can interfere with the fielder "fielding" a throw. Nothing to do with a batted ball.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by DG

I am familiar with the FED interp that says it is RLV if F2 throws the ball over F3's head, but not familiar with others that say other non-quality throws are the same. So if BR is running in fair territory left of the running lane on a dropped 3rd strike that gets away from the catcher to his right and he plugs the runner 15' from the base with F3 having no chance at a play, FED wants this called RLV? I need to see a case play or interp cited on that, or similar non-quality throws that do not involve throwing over F3's head because BR is in direct line between F2 and F3, and out of running lane.

DG,

I honestly don't believe that is the correct interpretation under FED rules.

The FED rule is the same as the OBR rule with one MAJOR exception. Under OBR, the defense is only "protected" for the attempt to catch a throw at 1st base. If the defense fails to make a quality throw, even if the BR is illegally in the "throwing lane", it is simply "E2" (or whatever) and the defense is afforded no protection.

Under FED, the fielder receiving the throw at 1B is similarly protected, but the fielder making the throw is ALSO protected if the BR is in his throwing lane and illegally outside his running lane.

If both conditions are met, AND the throwing fielder throws errantly, the BR is guilty of running lane interference.

If the BR is out of the lane but NOT in the fielder's throwing lane, it's tough noogies for the defense.

I believe that is what the FED rule says.

JM

[greymule]

The runner can interfere with a throw or he can interfere with the fielder "fielding" a throw. Nothing to do with a batted ball.

I don't do Fed, but reading the quoted rule in the OP led me to believe that a batted ball was included, which seemed illogical. If indeed the rule has nothing to do with a batted ball, then "while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base" is poor wording. Since a ball isn't "fielded to 1B," the phrase "fielded" stands completely separate from "thrown to 1B." Maybe "while a throw to 1B is being made or received" would be better.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

I am familiar with the FED interp that says it is RLV if F2 throws the ball over F3's head, but not familiar with others that say other non-quality throws are the same. So if BR is running in fair territory left of the running lane on a dropped 3rd strike that gets away from the catcher to his right and he plugs the runner 15' from the base with F3 having no chance at a play, FED wants this called RLV? I need to see a case play or interp cited on that, or similar non-quality throws that do not involve throwing over F3's head because BR is in direct line between F2 and F3, and out of running lane.

The FED has a specific case play or interp that this (BR to the left, F2 to the right, or vice-versa) is NOT interference.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The FED has a specific case play or interp that this (BR to the left, F2 to the right, or vice-versa) is NOT interference.

Right. Despite a certain statement reportedly made by a certain member of the FED Rules Committee, the rule requires at least one of 2 elements for INT (assuming the B/R is out of the lane):

1. The B/R interferes with the throw.
2. The B/R interferes with the fielding of the throw.

If neither of these occurs, there is no INT.

N.B. If the B/R is between the two fielders (directly in the throwing lane), he is presumed to have interfered with any throw.

[Tim C]

"Some FED clinicians for the state do want us to judge quality of the throw though . . . "

Johnny:

I have heard this in other states as well.

If State Rules Interpreters (or state clinicians) are saying this then one of two things:

1) They did not attend the video conference where Eliott and Kyle spoke to this EXACT issue or,

2) They are pushing their own agenda, not enforcing the rules that they say the will, and not calling NFHS interps.

Dash:

"1. The B/R interferes with the throw.
"2. The B/R interferes with the fielding of the throw.

"If neither of these occurs, there is no INT."

You logic is perfect BUT in Fedlandia is not true.

According to Kyle McNeely, permanent Chair of the Baseball Rules Committee, the NFHS DOES NOT want an individual umpire to determine "quality throw". He is quite adament that ANY throw qualifies and the ruling is "expected" to be a violation of the runners lane.

Period.

This is the official NFHS interp. Again, you logic is perfect but FED is an unperfect world.

T


T