Running Lane violation

[dileonardoja]

Had a play last night that I have a question about. Men's league, pretty good quality ball. Turf field without a marked running lane. 1 out, no one on, D3K just to the 3B side of HP. B/R takes off for first. F2 picks up ball and makes throw directly over B/R who is running completely inside the foul line. F3 jumps to make catch and comes down on bag as runner touches the bag. I have an out and sell it.

Question is if I didn't have an out, could this have been interference even though the throw was high? In my opinion it was high because the catcher was throwing over the runner. The runner was basically taking away the inside throw and based on where the ball ended up an outside throw would have been a little impractical. What is the correct mechanic?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

Had a play last night that I have a question about. Men's league, pretty good quality ball. Turf field without a marked running lane. 1 out, no one on, D3K just to the 3B side of HP. B/R takes off for first. F2 picks up ball and makes throw directly over B/R who is running completely inside the foul line. F3 jumps to make catch and comes down on bag as runner touches the bag. I have an out and sell it.

Question is if I didn't have an out, could this have been interference even though the throw was high? In my opinion it was high because the catcher was throwing over the runner. The runner was basically taking away the inside throw and based on where the ball ended up an outside throw would have been a little impractical. What is the correct mechanic?

Kind of depends on why the out didn't happen. RL interference must be with a quality throw. If F2 threw high and F3 missed it, you might not have interference. If F2 threw and F3 could have caught it, but couldn't because he couldn't see it in time, you might have int.

The runner doesn't "take away" anything from the catcher's ability to make a quality throw.

[rbmartin]

6.05(k) A batter is out when in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;



the last half of the distance from home base to first base... lane need not be marked

interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base...use your own judgement here as in any interference/obstruction scenario. In my opinion, if the runners presence outside the prescribed runners lane necessitated or caused F2 to throw the ball wildly (ie. rainbow a throw over the batter/runners head), that could be interference even though no contact was made.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

In my opinion, if the runners presence outside the prescribed runners lane necessitated or caused F2 to throw the ball wildly (ie. rainbow a throw over the batter/runners head), that could be interference even though no contact was made.

Only in FED.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Only in FED.

Why do you feel it could not be considered in OBR?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Why do you feel it could not be considered in OBR?

By interpretation, the throw to 1B must be a quality throw that would otherwise have retired the runner. A throw over F3's head would not have retired the runner. Under OBR, the runner has not interfered with such a throw.

FED puts the burden on the runner more than OBR, and the rule discourages catchers from drilling the runner in the back by explicitly permitting an INT call even if the throw is poor. Safety considerations motivate this rule difference from OBR.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Why do you feel it could not be considered in OBR?

A quality throw is required under OBR in order for there to be interference. The runner is actually interfering with the fielder's ability to make a play.

If it is not a quality throw then there is no play by the fielder
to interfere with.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by Welpe

A quality throw is required under OBR in order for there to be interference.

Please site source.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Why do you feel it could not be considered in OBR?

You bolded the answer to this...
interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Not "causes the catcher to abandon all hope of an out by throwing the ball into right field"

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Please site source.

rbmartin,

The cite is the text of 6.05(k) (posted above).

The OBR running lane interference rule only hold the runner liable for interfering with the fielder receiving the throw at 1B - not the fielder making the throw.

FED holds him liable for both.

JM

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You bolded the answer to this...
interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Not "causes the catcher to abandon all hope of an out by throwing the ball into right field"

So , in OBR, if the throw drills the runner in the back, you would not call RLI because the fielder was not "taking a throw"?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

So , in OBR, if the throw drills the runner in the back, you would not call RLI because the fielder was not "taking a throw"?

Kind of a troll response - I never put you in that category before.

If the throw drills the runner (assuming it's not plainly obvious to the world that the catcher was TRYING to hit the runner, and not throwing to first base), then he did, in fact, interfere with the fielder's ability to receive the throw.

It's not rocket science. Don't make it harder than it is. (And if you don't believe the 100% agreement in the responses you're getting, ask your clinician or UIC ... OBR, all over, is interpreted this way. FED, all over, is interpreted more broadly)

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Kind of a troll response - I never put you in that category before.

If the throw drills the runner (assuming it's not plainly obvious to the world that the catcher was TRYING to hit the runner, and not throwing to first base), then he did, in fact, interfere with the fielder's ability to receive the throw.

It's not rocket science. Don't make it harder than it is. (And if you don't believe the 100% agreement in the responses you're getting, ask your clinician or UIC ... OBR, all over, is interpreted this way. FED, all over, is interpreted more broadly)

Don't get me wrong sir. In the last 5 years of calling both OBR and FED games, I have called RLI exactly 1 time. It's not a call I'm itching to make. It is obvious from the responses that OBR guys look at this differently than FED guys and there may even be 100% agreement in each camp on this. However, I cannot see enough difference in the wording of the rules in both rulesets to warrant treating them differently. I was hoping for somthing out of a casebook or interpretation manual to explain the precedence you guys have pointed out other than just saying, "Thats how we all do it".
thanks.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Don't get me wrong sir. In the last 5 years of calling both OBR and FED games, I have called RLI exactly 1 time. It's not a call I'm itching to make. It is obvious from the responses that OBR guys look at this differently than FED guys and there may even be 100% agreement in each camp on this. However, I cannot see enough difference in the wording of the rules in both rulesets to warrant treating them differently. I was hoping for somthing out of a casebook or interpretation manual to explain the precedence you guys have pointed out other than just saying, "Thats how we all do it".
thanks.

Your right if you are relying on the rulesets alone your not going to find it. The federation Casebook is the difference here. Don't have it with me but it is well documented that RLI should be called if catchers throw the ball over the head of the first basemen. I don't agree with it either but that is their interpretation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Don't get me wrong sir. In the last 5 years of calling both OBR and FED games, I have called RLI exactly 1 time. It's not a call I'm itching to make. It is obvious from the responses that OBR guys look at this differently than FED guys and there may even be 100% agreement in each camp on this. However, I cannot see enough difference in the wording of the rules in both rulesets to warrant treating them differently. I was hoping for somthing out of a casebook or interpretation manual to explain the precedence you guys have pointed out other than just saying, "Thats how we all do it".
thanks.

Fair enough. However, I believe there's an important difference between, "That's how we all do it" and "That's what the supervisors of the two organizations have been telling us to do for years," the latter being the case. I'm not an OBR or FED guy, I'm both - when you do both you become well versed in both the actual rule differences and the differences in the way we are told to interpret rules. This is one of those.