3' Lane Editorial

[WestMichBlue]

Hey, we haven’t beat up on this rule yet in the new 2006 season, so I will get it started.

On another board, AltUmpSteve stated there was no right to a clear throwing lane; and that we are wrong to call interference when a throw is altered.

I disagree. There exists a very special rule in this game that is limited to a narrow 30-foot strip and it only applies to a batter-runner when there is a play from behind. Of the 240 or more feet of running lane, about 10% of it has a rule that requires the runner to stay within a legally prescribed limit. It gives the runner an un-inhibited running lane, and it wills to the defender the rest of the real estate in which to make a throw. A “clear lane,” if you will. It is called the 3’ lane rule and it has been with us since the first rulebook in 1932.

For years I have heard ASA folks take a literal interpretation of “interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B.” Interference is only an act against the receiver, never against the thrower or the throw. If a defender throws over a B-R running illegally and the ball goes over the defender at 1B, too bad. If she tries to “finesse” the ball past the B-R and the defender is unable to pickup the flight of the ball and it gets away, too bad. If she steps sideways to get a “clear throwing lane,” and in doing so her throw is too late, tooooo bad!

All these “too bads” means that the defense has lost an out that they should have had a fair opportunity to get, because of the illegal running of the B-R. They lost it because the umpiring community says it doesn’t matter that the thrower was interfered with; only that the receiver was not:

Strange thing – if the ball is stopped 15’ short of 1B and the receiver can only stand there and watch the ball rolling on the ground – then somehow the receiver has been interfered with! Doesn’t take a smart catcher too long to figure out that they need to look like they are trying to get the ball to 1B; but instead they drill the B-R in the back, because now the umpire will give them the interference call.

I come from a NFHS background where as recent as 2001 we called a B-R out just for running outside the 3’ lane if a play was being made down the 1B line. Maybe that was a little extreme, but in 2002 we copied the ASA text verbatim and started getting the ASA interpretation applied.

However – even official ASA doesn’t believe it anymore! POE 33-I doesn’t use the word “fielder,” instead it states that it is illegal to run outside the lane and interfere with a thrown ball to 1B. Case play 8.2.14 describes interfering with a fielder, or a fielder’s throw!

At a National Umpires School last spring I listened to Kevin Ryan, in his Saturday morning presentation, tell us to call interference when the runner prevented the defender from making a quality throw to 1B! When I challenged him, saying that was not the way I understood the ASA position, he forcibly repeated the same thing.

That afternoon, under the tutelage of clinician and NUS Steve Rollins, we spent an hour in a drill running outside the lane and trying to make a throw to 1B. In all cases, we were instructed to call interference when the runner interfered with the throw. By time that hour was over, I was convinced that ASA did not want that strict interpretation of the lane rule anymore!

BTW – it is interesting to note that the original rule was written as it is still today – interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B. HOWEVER, the rule had a qualifying statement: ”If the runner runs on or inside the base line and in any way interferes with the play being made at first base, he should be called out. That qualifier stayed in the book for nearly 30 years, dropping out of the text in 1959.

IMO, we error in taking a literal interpretation of this rule. Instead we should look at the reason for the rule; i.e., the spirit of the rule. The short game is a very important part of SB; base distances are short; there is very little time for the defenders to field a ball and make a play on the B-R down the 1B line. Thus the B-R is required by rule to run outside the foul line, leaving fair territory available to the defenders to make a play. My position is if the B-R is outside the 3’ lane, and that action prevents the defenders from making a play - CALL THE B-R OUT! Don’t feel sorry for the runner – she is guilty of an illegal action. The defense deserves the opportunity to make an out; give it to them if the B-R interferes with the play.

Your turn.


WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

The purpose of the rule WAS to keep the BRs from interfering with the player receiving the throw at 1B. There was no "clear throwing lanes" to be addressed. The fielder was and still should be responsible to find a throwing lane.

If you abandon the portion of the rule as it refers to the fielder at 1B, you just as well paint a target on the BR. Trust me, been there, done that and it cost the catcher the rest of the game. Also, by eliminating the fielder portion, that means there doesn't need to be anyone there to receive the ball.

Have you ever heard a coach scream at the catcher to "just hit her in the back"? I have and that is the message you are sending by simply ruling INT solely on the BR being hit by the ball.

BTW, I like KR, but not all his interps ring true.

[Dakota]

The running lane is an attempt to recognize the special nature of the play on the BR at 1st base while balancing the game between the offense and the defense.

At any other base, the runner may run anywhere she wishes using any base path she chooses. Actually, the same is true of a BR as well. She just has the additional caveat that if she is not in the running lane, and she interferes with the fielder taking the throw, she is out. Those who have the notion of "bad runner, bad, bad runner" merely because she had the temerity to choose her own base path need to get over it.

The defense still has to make the play. It is part of the offense's job to prevent the defense from initiating a play. Otherwise, a home run would be interference. If the play is never initiated, there is no interference with it. My only problem with your final paragraph, WMB, is the part of the sentences that says

that action prevents the defenders from making a play

and my issue is what is meant by

making a play

The defense does have to actually attempt a play here. Merely discouraging the fielder from even attempting a throw by choosing a base path is not interference, in my judgment.

A runner merely being hit in the back with a thrown ball is not interference anywhere on the playing field. Anywhere. Including in the final 30 feet to 1st base. There must be a viable play at 1B.

Speaking my understanding of ASA in the above. NFHS has a different view.

[GaryBarrentine]

I attended a local ASA Umpire School, and what I was taught about this situation is as follows.

If the runner is out of the lane on the fair side of the line and get hit with a throw from F2 to F3, the BR is out due to interference.

If the runner is half in and half out of the lane (straddling the line) and get hit with a throw from F2 to F3 on the half of the body that is in fair territory, the BR is out due to interference. If hit on the half of the body in the lane, it is no call.

If the runner is in the lane or out of the lane in foul territory get hit with a throw from F2 to F3, it is no call.

Have I been taught the correct way to apply this rule?

GaryB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by GaryBarrentine

I attended a local ASA Umpire School, and what I was taught about this situation is as follows.

If the runner is out of the lane on the fair side of the line and get hit with a throw from F2 to F3, the BR is out due to interference.

If the runner is half in and half out of the lane (straddling the line) and get hit with a throw from F2 to F3 on the half of the body that is in fair territory, the BR is out due to interference. If hit on the half of the body in the lane, it is no call.

If the runner is in the lane or out of the lane in foul territory get hit with a throw from F2 to F3, it is no call.

Have I been taught the correct way to apply this rule?

GaryB

People need to remember that when teaching folks, many statements are made to simplify the process. I.e., awarding of bases on an overthrow/blocked ball. The rule does not state the award is governed by the last base touched, yet that is the way it is taught, even in the POE.

You were taught correctly except for the foul territory thing as a generic statement.

[WestMichBlue]

Mike: If you abandon the portion of the rule as it refers to the fielder at 1B

I am not; I simply disagree with those that feel interference is only committed against the receiver. I want to expand it to include interfering with the throw, and the thrower.

Dakota: The defense does have to actually attempt a play here

Agreed – and my text was perhaps not clear. My definition of a play is a defender making a “quality” throw to a receiver in position such that the defense has a reasonable opportunity to make an out. I say “quality” throw because you can’t throw it in the dirt, and you can’t throw it in the dugout. You actually have to be trying to hit your teammate, but the throw may not be caught due to trying to throw around the runner, or it may be delayed, or it may be stopped by the runner.

Gary: If the runner is out of the lane . . . .and get hit with a throw . . . . the BR is out

This is what it has come down to. Case play after case play, discussion at meetings and on boards, training at clinics – all about hitting the runner. We argue endlessly about what part of the body was hit, and where the rest of the body was with respect to the chalk lines. When umpires talk about hit runners, and umpire documents dissect where runners are hit, then smart players and coaches know what they have to do to get the out.

Others have stated it – a B-R getting hit by the ball in itself is not interference. If the defender has a clear line to her teammate and hits the runner (who is out of the 3’ lane), that is not interference – that is a bad throw. But if the defender tries to get the ball past a B-R that is between her and her teammate, and her throw is off by 3” and hits the B-R, that is not a bad throw, that is interference. If she tries to force the throw past the B-R and her teammate cannot pick up the flight of the ball, or react to a wide or tall throw too late – that is not a bad throw, that is interference.

What it means to me is that if a B-R is outside her legal running lane, and is between the defender and the receiver, that she is interfering with the throw.

Interference is immediate dead ball. When the ball leaves the defenders hand we kill it; we don’t wait for the end of the play to see if the receiver can catch the ball. We don’t even wait to see if the B-R is hit.

At least, that is the way I feel we should base our interference judgments on 3’ lane violations.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Interference is immediate dead ball. When the ball leaves the defenders hand we kill it; we don’t wait for the end of the play to see if the receiver can catch the ball. We don’t even wait to see if the B-R is hit.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more. If no interference occurs, how can you call interference? That's like issuing a team warning during the pregame meeting. If we could tell the future, we wouldn't be umpires.

In all other interference plays, we kill the play right now without waiting for another other action to affect our call. But in this play, we want to let it play out before deciding interference or not.

Now, am I the only one reading the second half of this paragraph as a complete contradiction to the first half?

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Now, am I the only one reading the second half of this paragraph as a complete contradiction to the first half?

Now there are two of us. The sentence didn't read they way I intended so I edited it out.

WMB

[mcrowder]

WMB - are you saying that the way you describe this is the way you intend to call things right now, or just that you think the things you are saying is the way it SHOULD be. If the former, it contradicts both the written rule and everything I've ever heard (or said) at a clinic. If the latter, then this is a completely different discussion.

Mike - yes, it was a contradiction, but I think that was his point - it probably should have ended with a question mark to make his point better, but I understood him.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

WMB - are you saying that the way you describe this is the way you intend to call things right now, or just that you think the things you are saying is the way it SHOULD be.

Look at the title - it is an editorial, an opinion. Op/ed's are usually written to generate discussion; to get people to think differently, to challenge their thought process.

I spent the last half of my "real" career as a management consultant; I challenged the establishment; I fought the ingrained "But we've always done it this way" mentality. Because I've sat across the table from Fortune 500 CEO's, I fear no-one. And I am usually not afraid to say so. I will always think that Henry Pollards interpretation of an errant throw is ridiculous; it defies our common usage of the word "errant."

However, on this Board I can argue concepts and express opinions; on the field I will follow HP's interpretation when calling a game. In class I teach the accepted theory; in a game I call that way; but here I will argue the concept.

WMB

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I spent the last half of my "real" career as a management consultant; I challenged the establishment; I fought the ingrained "But we've always done it this way" mentality. Because I've sat across the table from Fortune 500 CEO's, I fear no-one.

The man behind the moniker is revealed! Boy, do those two sentences explain everything!

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I will always think that Henry Pollards interpretation of an errant throw is ridiculous; it defies our common usage of the word "errant."

Given the intent of the rule, I think his interp makes tons of sense; it is the wording of the rule that has the problem. What makes no sense is for the double base to be just one big base so the defense can merely use the orange base to extend F3's stretch. Although with the 2006 change, it is getting pretty much just that. See "makes no sense."

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I want to expand it to include interfering with the throw, and the thrower.

There already are rules to cover interfering with the thrower, and with a thrown ball. The running lane rule adds one additional dimension to the interference rules for the BR, namely that she may not interfere with the catch at 1B by running outside the lane.

It seems to me that if you expand the rule as you suggest, you may as well go to an automatic out for being out of the lane. The BR will generally have her back to the fielder who is fielding the batted ball, D3K, etc. It seems to be to be a fair balance between the offense and the defense to continue to require intent if interfering with the throw.