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.

[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.

[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

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

Thanks T. I didn't realize it was this bad.

My problem - that interpretation represents a rule change since it is contradictory to 8-4-1-g-1 as well as the case play Bob mentioned. It is like "interpreting" the batter walks after three balls.

Can they do that without some sort of official process?

[johnnyg08]

NCAA did it this year too, by "clarifying" that you must demonstrate voluntary release after a tag. While they're not in a rule cycle...that clarification is pretty much a rule change.