Coach brings rules book on field - NCAA

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Batter-runner was more than halfway up the line (I assume), outside of the three-foot running lane, and got hit with the throw from F2...and that's NOT interference?

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

So, as a non-NCAA umpire, if there is no running lane and therefore no running lane INT rule; why is there a question, let alone a protest?
Any runner hit by a thrown ball anywhere, not intentional, is just that. DMF.

[teebob21]

I don't disagree Cecil, which is why I said in the OP the protest itself was a topic for a whole 'nother thread. Of course, coaches would need to be up to date on the rule changes for something like this to happen and there not be a question.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.

AFAIK, there was never a rule describing where the BR must run. It was a rule describing where the BR can run to avoid the specific interference call. So, now the runner CAN be ruled as interferring if hit in the back with a thrown ball within where the running lane used to be? (I must be missing something... )

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the NCAA has gone through some serious pain creating rules providing and maintaining reference points for umpires (lines for pitching lane and batter's box) and then goes out of their way to eliminate that of the 3' lane which can provide major help to the umpires and players alike?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by teebob21

12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?

Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.

+1.

If the throw would have retired the runner (timely, a defensive player in position, and an accurate enough throw), then the runner running there interfered with the fielder receiving the throw.

I don't fully grasp the rationale, as no where else on the field is a "receiver" effectively guaranteed a runner won't get in the way; but it is what it is.

[jmkupka]

Having attended 2 NCAA rules meetings before the section started, it was clarified that nothing about the running lane rules changed, except the requirement for a line to be drawn (it would be nice if they drew a little tic mark at 15', to reduce that aspect of judgement, but I'lll survive).
To avoid being called for INT, the BR must stay in "that running lane area" until the last stride, when they may enter fair territory to contact 1B.

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, from your own description, it sounds like interference.

That said - it's a judgement call, and not protestable. And him coming out 2 innings later needs to be shut down immediately, very much in the manner that you did shut it down.

As to the next games - that's completely inappropriate, and I've seen umpires eject at the plate conference for coaches arguing crap from old games just like you describe.