Running Lane violation

[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.

[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

[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"

[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.

[Welpe]

I am not a "Fed guy" or an "OBR guy", I am simply an umpire that works games under both rulesets and acknowledge that each ruleset has its differences.

This is from 11th edition of JR (2007).

Pg. 105-106

"However, in regard to the 45-foot running lane, it is not interferences by a batter-runner if

(f) he exits the 45-foot running lane, or does not enter it, but avoids the throw and does not hinder the fielder accepting the throw at first base. Hence, in regard to the 45-foot running lane, a batter-runner cannot be guilty of interference for altering the throw of a catcher or other fielder (i.e., the fielder throws poorly, hesitates to throw, or does not throw)."

I'm sure you'll find something similar in JEA, the Wendelstedt manual and the BRD.