The Official Forum - Running Lane Violation. No call.

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Running Lane Violation. No call. (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/94936-running-lane-violation-no-call.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thumpferee (Post 893015)

FED-fielder or throw
NCAA-fielder
MLB-fielder

Sorry, my point earlier was FED on the throw, we are talking NCAA. But you said not in any rule set. Would I be correct in FED RLI can be called on the throw?

When did I say the double clutch was a reason to call a RLV? I was describing the play in question!

In FED you might be able to get away with RLV on the play posted, but I wouldn't call it more than likely. Throw was very catchable. If the throw had been somewhat higher, would be 50/50 on me calling a RLV

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluehair (Post 893044)

I always could justify RLI if the ball hit B when he's outside the RL. The "alters the throw" part seems to be the addition to RLI criteria.

If NCAA came out with this A.R. doesn't that imply that they want RLI called more often (like on the play in the video)...to penalize the cheaters ?

NCAA said they had "expanded" the interference penalty with the A.R.

My opinion here:

1) Was the runner out of the lane? Yes
2) Was it a quality throw? Yes
3) Did the runner being out of the lane hinder F3's attempt to catch the ball? Yes.

I'm guessing #3 is what the debate is about. Just look at the body language of F3. Watch him "stretch away" from the runner as the ball comes in to avoid him (or see around him). Seems to me like the runner's position in the runner's lane had a direct effect on F3 being able to field the ball cleanly. The runner is already in the wrong here by being out of the lane. I'm not bailing him out.

My vote is for runner's lane interference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 892855)

This. The double-clutch is irrelevant. There is no doubt F2 got off a quality throw in time to beat the B/R, who was never in the running lane. It's an easy play for F3 if the B/R is running legally. I have INT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72 (Post 893356)

Put me in this camp. I think that F3's ability to catch the ball was hindered by the BR running out of the runner's lane. I don't begrudge these guys for not calling it because it was close, but I also think that if they had, a good number of you who are saying it isn't INT would be posting about what a great call it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zm1283 (Post 893416)

For the record, most of us saying it isn't INT are not actually even saying that... we're just saying that with the singular angle we have, it's not certain.