Running Lane Violation. No call.
 

Last night's SEC game of the week on ESPNU (Florida at LSU) . Bases Loaded, 1 out, ground ball, F6 throws home for FO, F2 then moves well inside and throws to F3. Ball hits F3's glove then BR who seems to be well inside foul line. From view on TV, it looked like BR hindered F3's ability to catch the ball.

OC goes to HP Umpire, then to U1. Umpires confer. No interference is called.

When OC was asked about it during interview a few innings later he says he got the impression each umpire thought the other would make the interference call?

Ive worked very little 3-man (and no 4-man as they had), but I'm assuming PU still had responsibility for running lane after FO at Plate? Any thoughts?

I'm thinking that if the ball hit F3's glove, why the heck didn't he catch it. And if the play happen at the bag, well at that point the runner is allowed to be there.

Agree with the first sentence.

The second is true assuming the runner had been in the lane until that point.

And, to the OP -- yes, it's still primarily PU's call.

Anyone have video? From the description ... if the throw hit F3 and THEN BR, wouldn't the throw have been too late to get BR anyway? And also, as mentioned above - if the throw hit F3's glove, how did BR interfere with it?

Video is first play in highlights at this link:

05/02/2013 Florida vs LSU Baseball Highlights - YouTube

(Just realized first throw was from F1 not F6 but does not affect OP)

Rlv
 

I have a RLV. I think F2 double clutched because of the RLV.

Hard to tell without replays, but it seems to me that the BR either knocked the ball out of F3's mitt, or got hit by the ball after F3 failed to secure it. Either way, it happened just as the BR was crossing the bag. I really don't see anything that would make me think that the BR violated the runner's lane.

Double-clutching is the catcher's fault, not the BR's. You cannot justify a violation because the catcher failed to throw immediately.

Thanks for the video, although I can't really tell from that. I agree with you that he was out of the lane... but I can't tell at that speed and at this angle what happened to the throw when it got to first base. If the throw got to F3 first and he just failed to catch it, I don't see the BR having anything to do with it - just a bad catch. But it may have hit BR first, which would be interference.

Unfortunately the rule doesn't let you make that call.

To me
 

1. Looks like catcher through it outside instead of inside.
2. Who ever was covering 1st didn't help either.
3. Unless that is where catcher through it to get an interference call.

Angle wasn't very good but I'll go with 1 & 2.

It is not justification for that call, it is evidence of a RLV. When F2 did release the throw B was more than a step or two from reaching 1B and in fair territory the whole trip. IMO B interferred with F3 attempt to glove a quality throw.

Whether the catcher does a double clutch or a backflip before throwing is not evidence of anything at all, and is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters (assuming a runner outside the lane, which this guy was, and assuming a quality throw) is whether he interferes with the ACTUAL throw that was made.

You added after my reply! :)

If this is your opinion on the play, then it's definitely interference.

My point on this play was that I can't tell that from this angle and at this speed. I don't THINK it was... but I don't KNOW that it wasn't.

I hit the "save" button after your reply. I hadn't seen your reply before I started editting my incomplete post, but that;s neither here or there.

B gets to be in fair territory to touch 1B, and I'd give him a step or two grace (if he's not interferring). When B re-enters the video (throw has already been made), he is in fair territory with several strides to go before reaching 1B. It looked to me like F3 was getting his teeth out of the way because of B's interference.

Does RLV interference happen in an instant (as the ball passes B) or is RLV interference an on-going process from the time of throw to the attempted gloving?

Could very easily have been judged to be RLI -- and I'd suspect we'll see it at next year's pre-season meetings

It happens the moment that the umpire determines the fielder at first base cannot receive the throw. That usually happens as the ball approaches the bag, or, more obviously, when the ball hits the BR while he's out of the lane. You cannot make that judgment when the catcher first throws the ball because you have no idea where the ball is going and whether or not the fielder will be unsuccessful at making the play.

So, where you say...

...the ball is still a significant distance from first base at that point. No umpire is going to kill play when the ball is still in flight behind the BR.

If that's what you see, cool.

If you really have this question, then it really doesn't matter what I say to you, although I would suggest you ask your next clinician or some upper level person in your area that you WILL believe.

But to answer - very close to the former. The latter is absurd in context of the rule as written and enforced. But I do know in advance that you won't believe that statement coming from me.

This is SEC right - big time D1 NCAA. Not some LL minors team from Scrubville.

If I read this right the catcher double-clutched, couldn't find a lane, and then F3 had the ball hit him in the glove and he dropped it.

I might ask for a call just to see if I could get it but we'd be running the drill a whole bunch of times next practice because I know who really screwed up.

Does this drill have some player standing with his back to a throw while F2 fires the ball over his shoulder? ...F3 gets to practice not flinching as the ball deflects or not deflects off of the simulated BR. How badly does a teammate need to piss off his coach to be chosen as the simulated BR (it always pays to have a deep bench...next). :eek:

Most of them have some sort of "batter simulator" that gets used in the bullpen -- they could just put that on the line.

Otherwise, that's what freshmen are for. ;)

Are you serious?

I think, based on the emoticon, that he was not. I thought it was rather funny, actually. :)

Absolutely right, Rich!

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.

I would have used a joke font if one was available. I do appreciate you providing the inspiration for some fresh material. Though I do wonder what drill you could run to get F3 to disregard all the the money mom/dad spent on dental/orthondontal work.
I don't think the double clutch is irrelevant. It is one piece of evidence of what's going on here...Cheating. If this cheating causes a botched out, and all the requirements for RLI are met (I believe they have) penalize the cheater.

Sometimes there is fine line between OOO a play and having the balls to make a tough call.

The double clutch is irrelevant. You come to the same conclusion as dash with the call, but how you got there involves too much.

This was harped on for probably 10+ minutes at the NCAA meetings in Chicago. I can still hear Jim Paronto overly enunciating everything about this.

double clutch
 

The double clutch does not help satisfy any of the requirements for a RLI call, I agree. What is relevant about the double clutch is that it can give an umpire a clue about what might be happening here...cheating.

Here's what I saw:

The PU never bothered to get into any sort of position to look for a running lane violation (his next responsibility, after the force out). Yeah, he needed to still be behind the dish, as there was a runner coming toward third, but he needed to move to his left, and look down the barrel at first, IMO.

U1 stuck his left hand out, for some reason, as the ball got away.

The ball, the runner and F3 mitt all came together right at the bag. Hard to call any sort violation there. If the runner had been in the lane the entire time, then moved over to hit the bag, again IMO, you'd have the same situation.

It was really a "blink of an eye" situation, with no clear call to be made. Even slowed down, it was tough to make a judgement.

Crazy thing...
 

Watched the replay of the game yesterday on ESPNU. BR was out of the lane but as most have said it happened right at the bag. Mainly because of the double clutch gave BR time to make it there. Couldn't tell if maybe he had no one to throw it to, if it got stuck in the glove or what. But anyway, I see where a RLV could have been called here. But IMO, It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released, and before it got to the bag.

Well, I have a FED V game yesterday, I got the dish. Wouldn't you know it. Bases loaded, 1 out, Same EXACT play happens! I mean EXACTLY! (Except F5 fielded it coming toward the mound). Throw to the plate, out on the force, steps inside, throws to 1st where F3 is set up inside, hits runner on the right shoulder (outside) who is now just inside on his last stride to the bag.

I had nothing! AND, not one complaint.

REALLY?

Why do some think that because they have the ability to enunciate certain words, that they are also capable of making true statement.

Really?

That's almost like stating that because a catcher double-pumps we have RLI which MAY, be a little more credulous than "cheating".

Proof of no coaching ability.

That wasn't a double clutch.

Yes really. If you don't know that runners are willfully running in a place that they know is illegal for them to run for the sole purpose of trying to get away with interferring with a throw/catch from behind them, then you are either naive/gullible or never played this game. yes, Cheating, Really
I wonder if I went on a coaching website and told a coach that he had no umpiring ability, that he would be any more tickled than I am by this comment...nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

But you never answer my question, how do you get a player to disregard their safety/health for the benefit of the team. That is really the objective of drill that you were going to run to fix this error (the kid flinching). I know I don't have this coaching ability. I really doubt you do either...tell me how your coaching ability is going to get a kid to overcome this basic human survival instinct.

Funny you should include both comments. Lets see here, how about we start with, "Son this is what your going to do to keep your scholarship and/or stay on this Team".

Now you can call it coercion, gentle reminder of who controls the purse string, naivety, gullible or just plain fact. Your choice.

There is no need to determine if there is cheating going on. If the B/R's illegal position made it more difficult for F3 to make the play, I have INT.

Others have opined that they need more harm than that to call the foul. That's fine. It's a judgement thing.

In a game yesterday, in the now SUNNY pacific northwest, I had a b/r run about a foot inside fair territory going to first. F1 fielded the ball, threw a strike to F3 to nail the b/r, who took the throw inside the bag, as coached.

Would you call interference on this?

Doesn't sound like there was any interference to call.

This is what I had in my situation, and you opined that you didn't need more 'harm' than that to call it. Now you say don't call it. What do you really believe?

In your situation F3 made the catch. Why would I call INT in that?

Let me try this a different way (just one more time). In your post you state, "If the B/R's illegal position made it more difficult for F3 to make the play, I have INT."

Did you fail to add, "if F3 cannot make the catch"?

Ok I'll play your game. Yes. If F3 makes the play, I have no INT.

Thanks for playing. Had you posted more clearly there would have been no need to keep asking for clarification.

You are incorrect. By rule. What the catcher does before the throw has ZERO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether we should rule running lane interference.

Then you desperately need to re-read the rule. There CANNOT be RLI at this point. Period. In any rule set.

This is exactly correct. I honestly have no problem with an umpire seeing this play and ruling INT. I have a huge problem (obviously) with those who think it should have been called because the catcher double clutched - i.e. those who refuse to read and understand this rule.

Please clarify!

Rule clearly states, while the ball is being thrown to first base.

I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call. I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.

If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference. The double clutch can’t be the reason for interference because no interference has occurred yet. Without a quality throw (except in Fed), there is nothing yet to be interfered with.

PU had a throw F1/F2, a force out at HP...then he has F2 double clutching...why the double clutch?...because B was violating the RL rule. It is not interference yet, but the double clutch might alert an umpire that interference might occur soon.

Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.

If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.

Not a lot of rules make much sense when you only quote about 1/6 of it. Look at the entire rule ... specifically - what the runner must interfere with for us to rule interference.

Anyone? Thump said, "It should have been called after the double clutch, as the ball was being released". You said the double clutch was "evidence of an RLV" - that's kind of absurd... the runner's feet stepping out side the lane is the evidence you should be concerned with.

You are completely misinterpreting the rule then. You say that it is obvious BR violated the RL rule. There is no rule that says you can't run wherever the heck you want. Running somewhere does not violate anything. The RL rule is very clear and very easy... it says that IF YOU INTERFERE WITH THE FIELDER'S ABILITY TO CATCH A QUALITY THROW... and if you are out of the RL when you do so, then you have committed interference. Being out of the lane is nothing - the lane is simply a SAFE place where you cannot be ruled out for interfering with a thrown ball. You have the entire concept Bassackwards if you feel that leaving the lane is violating a rule.

Thump did more clearly than you did.

I agree with all of this (except the bassackward part). I have no problem ruling INT on this play, although I wish we had a view that actually showed what happened to the ball between the time it passed (or touched) the batter and when it went bounding away. I only have issue with the concept that what the catcher does before throwing matters at all. You (and thump) need to understand that you have newbies on here reading and not posting. They are going to read your post, say to themselves, "That makes sense", and then rule someone out for being out of the lane when the catcher didn't even throw ... because they've followed your logic further and decided he didn't throw because of that runner "breaking a rule" or "cheating".

I get that ... and agree that worrying about a future conversation with coach should have the same amount of bearing on the call as the catcher's backflips. :) Zero, that is.

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!

Exactly. The double clutch is irrelevant. If you're taking that into account in making your ruling, you're wrong. If you think you can call INT as early as "right after the double-clutch" or "right after the throw is made", you are also wrong. Even in FED.

The runner still has to interfere to be guilty of interference.

For example, if the catcher double clutches, then throws, and the runner beats a good throw anyway - no INT. Or if the catcher DC's and throws, and the runner is back in the lane before he affects the first baseman at all - again, no INT.

I'll say this again. Running out of the lane is not illegal. INTERFERING while out of the lane is illegal. (And in FED, being the CAUSE of a bad throw while out of the lane is also illegal).

Your last statement is what I was looking for MD.

The double clutch is irrelevant, was just a little giveaway that runner may have been out of the lane is all.

Cool.

This year NCAA added an A.R. to 7.11.p - the running-lane rule - which is identical to OBR 6.05(k),(except for the new A.R.):

"If the batter-runner is outside the running lane and alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the throw, the batter-runner shall be called out."

Yes, but the "alters the throw" part doesn't mean what it does in FED. We still aren't to reward a poor throw in NCAA.

Agreed. I'm not sure what those words mean. How do you alter a quality throw?

It seems FED wants to penalize no matter what!

In bigger boy ball, make a play!

Here's what I took from the discussion:

Old rule: "... interferes with the fielder."

Play: Throw hits runner outside lane; interference is called.

Rat: "But the runner didn't interfere with the fielder since the ball never got there."

Rules committee: Let's add to the rule.

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 ?

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

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.

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.

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.