Running Lane - Whose Call?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

I wrote about primary coverage and secondary coverage. Not about only coverage and no coverage. The same is true for 2-man and 3-man mechanics. I did not write that the BU follows the ball only. If the BU reads a true throw, he moves his eyes to the base and then listens for the "slap-thud," on an "untrue" throw his focus must remain on the ball longer to see where the throw will take F3. So on non-true throw the BU will have a hard time seeing the feet of the BR, the flight of the ball, and F3. The PU does not have to worry about the first two things, so he has primary coverage for the BR's feet on a non-true throw. On a true throw the plate umpire has nothing to worry about at first base but the position of the BR's feet. (Swipe tags, etc. are not likely to happen on true throws.)

So while both umpires can call this, it is the PU's primary responsibility in all mechanics and a secondary or tertiary responsibility for BU in all mechanics. This is why it is important for the PU to be 1BLE if he has to stay home on the play. Furthermore the PU is much more credible than the BU for this violation, because of the angle he has.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

OBR: Rule 6.05(k) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane.

Yep, I know what the rule states. I read it before I posted. Do you make this call if he has one foot out and one foot in?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Yep, I know what the rule states. I read it before I posted. Do you make this call if he has one foot out and one foot in?

When anyone is running never are both of his feet on the ground at the same time and BRs on this play are typically running. Given that, the runner will never have both feet within the lane. So the rule can not be enforced literally. So for practical purposes, what matters is whether his last foot was on the ground within the lane or not.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Yep, I know what the rule states. I read it before I posted. Do you make this call if he has one foot out and one foot in?

If he interferes, yes.

[DG]

To answer the question, PU.

Whether it was a running lane violation depends on what is meant by F3 missed the catch. Did the ball hit the runner? Did the ball hit F3's glove? In other words, did the runner interfere with F3's ability to catch the ball?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I wrote about primary coverage and secondary coverage. Not about only coverage and no coverage. The same is true for 2-man and 3-man mechanics. I did not write that the BU follows the ball only. If the BU reads a true throw, he moves his eyes to the base and then listens for the "slap-thud," on an "untrue" throw his focus must remain on the ball longer to see where the throw will take F3. So on non-true throw the BU will have a hard time seeing the feet of the BR, the flight of the ball, and F3. The PU does not have to worry about the first two things, so he has primary coverage for the BR's feet on a non-true throw. On a true throw the plate umpire has nothing to worry about at first base but the position of the BR's feet. (Swipe tags, etc. are not likely to happen on true throws.)

So while both umpires can call this, it is the PU's primary responsibility in all mechanics and a secondary or tertiary responsibility for BU in all mechanics. This is why it is important for the PU to be 1BLE if he has to stay home on the play. Furthermore the PU is much more credible than the BU for this violation, because of the angle he has.

The question that was asked was who calls this play. That suggest that it is an either, or situation. It clearly is not that way and why I stated what I did. There are exceptions to a lot of things and that is why I say either one could make this call. Now what your process to watch the ball and the catch is different than mine as I feel you have to watch all these things and not be so focused on just one thing at a time. But I think if it is obvious to the BU they should call it. Sometimes both calling it will bolster the credibility of the call. I just do not like letting the BU off the hook if they see something. It is not like they are oblivious to the movement of the runner.

Peace

[CT1]

As BU, I would never make this call without giving PU first shot at it.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The question that was asked was who calls this play. That suggest that it is an either, or situation. It clearly is not that way and why I stated what I did. There are exceptions to a lot of things and that is why I say either one could make this call. Now what your process to watch the ball and the catch is different than mine as I feel you have to watch all these things and not be so focused on just one thing at a time. But I think if it is obvious to the BU they should call it. Sometimes both calling it will bolster the credibility of the call. I just do not like letting the BU off the hook if they see something. It is not like they are oblivious to the movement of the runner.

Peace

It can't be joint responsibility and it could be a very bad thing if they both call it. Imagine the a play that could or could not be RLI and the plate guy makes the mechanic and says that's nothing at the same time the base guy signals and calls interference....Now what? This is why mechanics manuals have it as the responsibility of the PU.

That procedure I described for taking plays at first is pretty standard: Read a true throw, take your eyes from the ball to the base and listen for the sound of the ball in the glove and watch for the foot touching the base. Read a non-true throw, make an adjustment depending upon how the ball will be received, how the tag will be made, whether F3 will remain on the bag etc.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

It can't be joint responsibility and it could be a very bad thing if they both call it.

Imagine the a play that could or could not be RLI and the plate guy makes the mechanic and says that's nothing at the same time the base guy signals and calls interference....Now what? This is why mechanics manuals have it as the responsibility of the PU.

Not everyone subscribes to the same mechanics manuals or has the same philosophy about what to call and not what to call. So we will just have to disagree on this one for that reason alone. Mechanics books are guides to positioning, they do not often share what is actually done in many situations that are not perfectly listed in those manuals. And being a multi-sport official, primary does not mean another official does not have secondary coverage and can call things to help out on a situation or give a different angle. And if the goal is to "get the play right" which I seem to read all over this board, then it would only make sense that both umpires would have an angle to get this play right.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

That procedure I described for taking plays at first is pretty standard: Read a true throw, take your eyes from the ball to the base and listen for the sound of the ball in the glove and watch for the foot touching the base. Read a non-true throw, make an adjustment depending upon how the ball will be received, how the tag will be made, whether F3 will remain on the bag etc.

Read the throw to me does not mean I need to follow the ball all over the field. Honestly all I ever do is watch the fielder play the ball and when they come up throwing I take my eyes off of them and focus on first base area. The first baseman is going to take you to the ball and you will hear when it hits their glove. And if there is a bad throw it will be obvious to you based on the movement of the first baseman. You do not have to follow the ball or "read" the ball to figure that out. A play at first is not going to take much adjustment as my positioning is going to be pretty much the same, at least with a throw from inside the diamond and with the 3rd, short and 2nd basemen. So my look at the runner is pretty much the same. I can tell you with confidence I am not going to go where that MLB umpire did and not see a first baseman off the bag by 3 feet. That is never going to be my position so I think I am confident if I a runner is out of that lane I will be on top of it. Once again it is usually a pre-gamed thing too and never had anyone make that big of a deal out of this. And in three person especially the BU is not always has only responsibility with the runner as they might have to be up the 3rd base line on a batted ball. They might be pulled away from only looking at the runner in the running lane.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not everyone subscribes to the same mechanics manuals or has the same philosophy about what to call and not what to call.

No doubt, but I know of no mechanics, that are widely used, that give running lane responsibilities to the the BU.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

if the goal is to "get the play right" which I seem to read all over this board, then it would only make sense that both umpires would have an angle to get this play right.

Get it right is an ex post philosophy, ie, the umpire whose responsibility it is for a call may ask the other umpire(s) if he missed some important aspect of the play that may change his judgment on that play. It is not an ex ante philosophy where all umpires can call all things and then hope there aren't opposite calls on any particular play. So I think your use of the get it right philosophy here is a red herring.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And in three person especially the BU is not always has only responsibility with the runner as they might have to be up the 3rd base line on a batted ball. They might be pulled away from only looking at the runner in the running lane.

In 3-man mechanics on a ground ball to the infield there is never any reason for the PU to head to third, he does not have responsibility for runners at third base when the ball does not leave the infield.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

all I ever do is watch the fielder play the ball and when they come up throwing I take my eyes off of them

So, you are reading that at least there was a throw. Reading a true throw allows the BU to come set in a timely manner. If the throw isn't true the BU has to be prepared to adjust. That is the purpose of reading the throw.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I can tell you with confidence I am not going to go where that MLB umpire did and not see a first baseman off the bag by 3 feet. That is never going to be my position so I think I am confident if I a runner is out of that lane I will be on top of it.

Not sure what the first has to do with what we are hashing out here, but OK. The play you are alluding to happened because the throw was not true and the BU prepared for the play at first as if the throw was true. As for the second part, the ball and runner are coming from different areas so seeing both at the same time is very difficult especially if the focus is on the first base area because the first base area is not moving, but the runner and the ball are.

RLI has to do with the position of the runner as it interferes with F3's ability to catch a quality throw. I don't think a base umpire can determine those things at the same time in 99% of the cases which is why the plate umpire has responsibility for RLI in nearly all mechanics.

[johnnyg08]

Okay, so in the case of the Anaheim protest play, does PU still have responsibility even though he's set up 3BLX? Does PU glance? Potential problems I see with a PU sliding is that he might get run over by R3, if he slides toward fair territory, PU risks "interfering" with F2's throw...so in a case such as this, if PU is supposed to be 3BLX, who calls RLI?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Okay, so in the case of the Anaheim protest play, does PU still have responsibility even though he's set up 3BLX? Does PU glance? Potential problems I see with a PU sliding is that he might get run over by R3, if he slides toward fair territory, PU risks "interfering" with F2's throw...so in a case such as this, if PU is supposed to be 3BLX, who calls RLI?

It still belongs to the PU, which is why he should be on 1BLX, not 3BLX. He should have adjusted when the throw went to first. Most clinics and schools teach that when the ball is coming out of the box, ie, from around the plate area, that U1 get a bigger angle, at one time it was taught to get all the way into the baseline between 1st and 2nd, making it very difficult to rule on RLI. As this play turned out there was no runner's lane violation for two reasons, 1st and most important, the BR did not impede F3's ability to field the throw from F2 and 2nd the throw was not a quality throw.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No doubt, but I know of no mechanics, that are widely used, that give running lane responsibilities to the the BU.

Again not everyone subscribes to a specific book. So if you are only referencing those books then we are not talking from the same experiences. My state in HS does not use any NF book for mechanics. So there are a lot of things in our mechanics that are not as ridged as some books might be. But even in the CCA book it does not say that only the PU can make this call or at least it did not say that when I was more familiar with those games. Now if you can show a reference that says that only the PU has to make this call then I will agree with that sentiment, but that is not what was taught or talked about in NCAA literature as an exclusive call of the PU. And I doubt that this is the case in 3 or more umpires on the field as opposed to 2 Man.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Get it right is an ex post philosophy, ie, the umpire whose responsibility it is for a call may ask the other umpire(s) if he missed some important aspect of the play that may change his judgment on that play. It is not an ex ante philosophy where all umpires can call all things and then hope there aren't opposite calls on any particular play. So I think your use of the get it right philosophy here is a red herring.

Actually I think the people that always use that ideal often are never clear what they mean. And they override mechanics in order to justify watching something they should not be watching. In this case it is possible that umpires are watching in the same vicinity. And one is guaranteed to be down the line, the PU might be at a different angle.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

In 3-man mechanics on a ground ball to the infield there is never any reason for the PU to head to third, he does not have responsibility for runners at third base when the ball does not leave the infield.

So where is the PU, behind the catcher? If there is a hit down the line and the 3B umpire is no on the line, they might certainly well be up the line to rule on fair foul as no one else is in position to make that call. Yes they absolutely can be up the line and not in great position to see what a runner is doing down the line. Now if you are lazy and stay behind the dish, then yes you would be in a better position, but some plays will require you (by mechanic) to go up the line a little. And by the time you see the runner and their position you are not in a great spot.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

So, you are reading that at least there was a throw. Reading a true throw allows the BU to come set in a timely manner. If the throw isn't true the BU has to be prepared to adjust. That is the purpose of reading the throw.

I have never been told that reading the throw means I must watch its flight to the base. At least that is not the case at first base while being in the A position. And reading the throw means mostly to me that you know where they are throwing the ball. Once that is clear (and it is really clear being in the A position) you focus on the fielder, the bag and the throw will be obvious. Maybe you do not know, but this is not my first rodeo. I have done this before and at a rather high level. Your use of terminology might be a different process for you, but not my process.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Not sure what the first has to do with what we are hashing out here, but OK. The play you are alluding to happened because the throw was not true and the BU prepared for the play at first as if the throw was true. As for the second part, the ball and runner are coming from different areas so seeing both at the same time is very difficult especially if the focus is on the first base area because the first base area is not moving, but the runner and the ball are.

RLI has to do with the position of the runner as it interferes with F3's ability to catch a quality throw. I don't think a base umpire can determine those things at the same time in 99% of the cases which is why the plate umpire has responsibility for RLI in nearly all mechanics.

I appreciate the lesson and what you think about this, but honestly I was not looking for opinions on this. I feel that the BU has plenty of right based on a lot of factors to make this call. I would want them to make that call if as I stated I am not in great position to make this call. And if I am the BU I will be damned if I rely on the PU only to make a call and the play happens right at the base and I clearly see the play. Just like I think it is silly to have the PU make a tag call on a play I am doing nothing but watching this one play. You do not get help at any other base, so why is first base so special on those kinds of plays. And I am sure someone will tell me that you must ask for help on pulled feet and swipe tags too.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, because nothing you have stated is changing my mind based on the camps I have attended, the meetings when this topic has been talked about and the actual game situations where I have experienced one of these plays and someone needed to call this. Again, mechanics are guides, they are not absolutes. And many things in those books you seem to be so happy to reference (which you have not given me a specific reference either BTW) are not clearly covered. Or it does not mean that someone cannot have a different opinion. Like we talk all the time about the usage of whether to use a indicator or not on the bases or behind the plate, but there are college conferences that require such usage because of mistakes made under their watch. Not everything we do or philosophies we hold are stated.

I will just say this. I was always taught the three legged stool of officiating and it applies here.

1. Rules knowledge
2. Mechanics
3. Philosophy.

All of those things apply to even a situation like this because it is a philosophy when and if we call things and when we do not call things. And who has bases and obstruction and interference are often things I talk about because in certain situations the "primary" coverage umpire might not have the best look or angle at watching things. We still have to cover the play irregardless of what a book says.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

..honestly I was not looking for opinions on this.

Understood. Got it.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

I've read the full thread. At the risk of offensing some people, there's a great deal of misinformation in these posts. Running lane rules are essentially the same everywhere.

1. It's always the plate umpire's call. 2-man,l 3-man, 4-man. If he's gets screened, he should move from high school to junior high. Especially in 2-man, the base umpire will never have the correct angle.

2. The runner must have both feet in the running lane or be in jeopardy of an out for interference. If he doesn't interfere, he may run anywhere he wants.

3. The ball doesn't have to hit the batter-runner. But if it is thrown and the fielder covering first misses it, the umpire must judge it was a quality throw. If yes, BR is out. If no, E2 (or whoever).

4. If the fielder behind the runner DOES NOT THROW, there can be no interference. It's different when the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to a base. At the plate, the catcher does not have to throw.

5. New this year in NCAA (and already the rule in OBR): If the batter-runner has been advancing legally, as he nears the base he may le\ave the running lane to acquire the base. Jim Evans started preaching that in 1991. In 2007 it finally showed up in the book. See section 282 in the 2012 BRD.

This is pretty easy stuff though it is one of the rules many amateur umpires have difficulty getting their heads around.

Mostly, it's like 3 strieks and you're out. The only judgment ever involved is: The throw didn't hit the batter-runner and the covering fielder didn't catch the throw.

KISS, fellows. Now, obstruction? That's tough! Running lane? Kindergarden.

Of course, one must admit in some venues it takes guts to make that call. But if you can't, take up soccer.