Running lane surprise ruling

[Steve M]

A couple of years ago, we had a discussion on the possibility of a running lane violation by the batter-runner on a walk. At that time, Fed had just taken the position that the batter-runner must advance to first within the running lane or risk being called out on interference if hit by a throw to first. In a hotel room discussion with 3 members of ASA's national staff, my state uic, several district uic's, and a guy who was then an asst state uic (I think you were there, Mike), it was made very clear that ASA did not agree with Fed - the B-R was awarded 1B and could not be put out on a running lane violation because there was no legitimate play to be made at 1B - until after the B-R had passed 1B. These same folks - some of whom are pretty well known in the NCAA ranks - at least 3 world series and I don't know how many regionals - made the statement that the NCAA had the same position as the ASA. Until today, I accepted that without question. I agreed strongly with the ASA and NCAA position - and I still do. However, I have an email from Dee Abrahamson, forwarded to me by a friend, that states the NCAA position is the same as the Fed position. She also stated that there will be a note added to Rule 12, Section 2, Article a to clarify their position. I am surprised and disappointed, but will call their games using their rules and rulings.

Mike - Any chance that ASA is going to make this rule change?

[whiskers_ump]

WOW

Steve,

As you have probably noted in the 2005 NFHS rule book, they have
placed just that item in the 2nd position under Points Of Emphasis,
right behind Team Huddles.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Steve M
A couple of years ago, we had a discussion on the possibility of a running lane violation by the batter-runner on a walk. At that time, Fed had just taken the position that the batter-runner must advance to first within the running lane or risk being called out on interference if hit by a throw to first. In a hotel room discussion with 3 members of ASA's national staff, my state uic, several district uic's, and a guy who was then an asst state uic (I think you were there, Mike), it was made very clear that ASA did not agree with Fed - the B-R was awarded 1B and could not be put out on a running lane violation because there was no legitimate play to be made at 1B - until after the B-R had passed 1B. These same folks - some of whom are pretty well known in the NCAA ranks - at least 3 world series and I don't know how many regionals - made the statement that the NCAA had the same position as the ASA. Until today, I accepted that without question. I agreed strongly with the ASA and NCAA position - and I still do. However, I have an email from Dee Abrahamson, forwarded to me by a friend, that states the NCAA position is the same as the Fed position. She also stated that there will be a note added to Rule 12, Section 2, Article a to clarify their position. I am surprised and disappointed, but will call their games using their rules and rulings.

Mike - Any chance that ASA is going to make this rule change?

I certainly hope not. I'll try to remember to ask next weekend in Mobile.

[CecilOne]

No matter how much we hate or disagree about a rule, consistency makes life and umpiring better. If the ASA goes with the other two biggest rules bodies, that would enhance consistency.

Yes, I know most people don't see the logic of this interp. and making the call might provoke strong arguments, especially if the major rule books differ. The argument about whether throwing to 1st after a BB is a play is highly emotional, along whether a play is needed to interfere. Even if the rule said interfering with a play instead of a catch; the throw to 1st on a BB is a legitimate play to:
1) keep the BR there
2) decoy another runner
3) setup for an appeal of infractions like missed bases, abandonment, etc.
4) maybe even catcher thinking U3K instead of ball four
The issue is not whether any of us like the ruling or the idea or whatever, it's whether this is an accurate interp. of the rules as written.

No one likes the idea of giving the catcher leave to "peg" any runner, BB or not. That has to be eliminated as a judgement call by the umpire, just like judging that the runner actually interfered with the catch or it was uncatchable.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
No matter how much we hate or disagree about a rule, consistency makes life and umpiring better. If the ASA goes with the other two biggest rules bodies, that would enhance consistency.

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
- Oscar Wilde

Originally posted by CecilOne
The argument about ... whether a play is needed to interfere {is highly emotional}.

No it isn't. It is definitional. The rule doesn't say "block" the catch or "screw up" the catch or "get in the way of" the catch - it says "interferes with" the fielder taking the throw. "Interference" in the rule book has a definition. Definitionally, it requires a play. It is not emotional.

Originally posted by CecilOne
Even if the rule said interfering with a play instead of a catch;

Actually, the ASA book does not say interfering with the catch. It says interfering with the fielder making the catch. The rule book is not required to say "inteference, as defined in Rule 1, with the fielder" - the definition of "inteference" holds throughout the book.

Originally posted by CecilOne
the throw to 1st on a BB is a legitimate play to:
1) keep the BR there
2) decoy another runner
3) setup for an appeal of infractions like missed bases, abandonment, etc.
4) maybe even catcher thinking U3K instead of ball four

If there is a play, there is no need for any interp mandating this. The rule does not say the running lane DOES NOT apply to a BB. It merely says it requires there to be a play.

Originally posted by CecilOne
The issue is not whether any of us like the ruling or the idea or whatever,

Yes it is.

Originally posted by CecilOne
it's whether this is an accurate interp. of the rules as written.

It is an unnecessary interp. And a silly one. And a bad one. And ...

[Dakota]

BTW, this interp by the NCAA should not be such a shock.

After all, what do the NCAA and the NFHS have in common WRT the rules of the game?

ANS: The coaches are in control.

[Steve M]

Again, them's the rules of the two organization, so them's the rules I will call their games by. The problem I have is that there is no legitimate "play" on the B-R until after that B-R has attempted to go beyond 1B, since this is an awarded base. Remember, a "play" means that there is a high likelyhood of getting an out - unless we are changing definitions.

[Tex]

As explained at a recent 2004 ASA National Umpire School, there is a scenario where the batter-runner can be called out on a ball four walk, going to 1st base.

Even though the batter has obtained ball 4, the batter-runner still has to run the basses properly. If the play has all of the following conditions, the batter-runner is out:
1) As the batter-runner is going to 1st base, the umpire must sense that the runner will be continuing to 2nd base.
2) The batter-runner is going to 1st base in fair territory away from the foul line.
3) The catcher has come in front of home plate (fair territory) to throw to the 1st baseman.
4) The 1st baseman (also in fair territory) is at 1st base on the 2nd base side.
5) The throw from the catcher hits the batter-runner who is also in fair territory as mentioned in #2 above.

Keep in mind; all 3 players (catcher, 1st baseman, and batter-runner) are in fair territory, with the batter-runner trying to continue to 2nd base. Therefore, there is an implied intent that the batter-runner is interfering with the defensive player in making a play. Batter-runner is out for interference.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Tex
1) As the batter-runner is going to 1st base, the umpire must sense that the runner will be continuing to 2nd base.

IOW, in the judgment of the umpire, there was a play. Without that, there is no interference, unless, of course, the BR is merely in violation of the NFHS (and apparently, NCAA) dodgeball rule.

[Tex]

Dakota,
Again, I wrote that all 5 conditions must be true per the ASA National Instructor Umpires. #5 condition states a throw from the catcher. To me that makes a play. I have no idea what your dodgeball rule is or what that has to do with the subject.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Tex
I have no idea what your dodgeball rule is or what that has to do with the subject.

Originally posted by Steve M
Fed had just taken the position that the batter-runner must advance to first within the running lane or risk being called out on interference if hit by a throw to first.

Seems like that IS the subject.

[whiskers_ump]

Tom,

Actually the 3-foot running thingy came up in 2001, then 2002 it was
placed in POINTS OF EMPHASIS Section.

2005 Rule read exactly the same.....Just a reminder I guess.

I have seen it called once, the first year, but it is obvioulsy
a very rare thing. Remember, it is a In the judgement of the umpire
call whether or not the runner was interfering with the 1st
baseperson taking
or receiving a throw. Cannot see it happening too often. I agree, even to
include the possiblity is not a good thing.

A base on balls has always been an awarded base. Now a runner can be
adjudged to be interfering if she carelessly throws her bat towards the
dugout area and trots towards first out of the running lane. It can be
argued that the catcher was throwing the ball to keep her from advancing
on to second, but you do not see much that either in NFHS and the older
ASA age groups. Have not done a whole lot of college, but have not seen
that there either.

JMHO



[Edited by whiskers_ump on Oct 31st, 2004 at 12:07 AM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Tex

Keep in mind; all 3 players (catcher, 1st baseman, and batter-runner) are in fair territory, with the batter-runner trying to continue to 2nd base. Therefore, there is an implied intent that the batter-runner is interfering with the defensive player in making a play. Batter-runner is out for interference.

Think about this: What umpire could even remotely believe a BR advancing in fair territory was going to continue to 2B?

If a BR in fair territory is going to advance to 2B, they would most have to stop at 1B to make a less than 90 degree turn toward 2B and what happens when the BR stops on the base and the ball is in the circle? That's right, the LBR is in effect and the player would be ruled out.

But you say they don't have to stop, they can run through the bag and then head toward 2B. True, but how would an umpire know that unless s/he could see the future?

It's the coulda, woulda shoulda guesses that kill umpires. Can probabilities be taken into consideration? Absolutely. Should they be the sole basis for an absolute ruling? I don't think so.

Furthermore, even if the umpire judges the runner may be going to 2B, wouldn't that play be on a RUNNER beyond 1B? So how does the 3' lane violation affect a play not being made on a BATTER-RUNNER at 1B?

Sorry, but this interpretation is ludicrous.

JMHO,



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Oct 31st, 2004 at 09:12 AM]

[KBoy]

I am mostly a reader of this board; but this topic has drawn my interest. At first, I agreed with many of you on this topic and felt it was a bulls**t call, but when I thought about it, I now feel it is consistant with the rest of the rule. If the runner knows that they are in violation for running outside the 3-foot lane after a base on balls, what reason will they have for running outside the lane, expcept to cause interference.

Using the same logic that you are, the Look Back Rule is also a BS call in many situations, like when the runner steps off to smooth the dirt 5 of 6 feet from the bag when there is no action and not being granted time out.

If the offensive player does what they are supposed to do, there is no infraction and I see no legitimate reason for the running not to be in the three foot running lane.

[Dakota]

Welcome to active participation, Kboy!

The problem I have with your analysis is this...

The batter-runner is not in violation of anything by running outside of the running lane. Runners, including BRs, are allowed to take any path to the base they darn well please.

But, they are not allowed to interfere with the defense (using the rule book definition of "interference"). For a thrown ball, there must be intent on the part of the runner. The only exception to this is the running lane violation, which deletes the requirement of intent, but leaves in place the definition of interference - that is, there must be a play. See Steve's definition of a play.

Merely throwing the ball to a defensive player standing at or near an awarded base is not a play.

Stating that a batter-runner is out if the batter-runner gets hit with the ball while out of the running lane absent any play is dodgeball. Even with a batted ball, merely getting hit with the throw while out of the running lane is not per se an out. The umpire must still judge there was a play (i.e. the BR was interfering with the fielder making the catch). Look for several old discussions on this topic using the phrase "quality catch."