ASA 3-foot running lane

[SRW]

So we all know (or should know) how the running lane works in ASA. Rule 8-2-E dictates how that works.

ASA published a rule interpretation in April 2007 that expands the rule to a certain degree.

In our training class last week, a question arose related to the double base and the running lane: If a throw is coming from the foul side, and the defender sets up on the colored bag, the runner can run to the white bag, and the running lane shifts to the fair side of the foul line.

By rule, if the "defensive player uses the colored portion of the double base, the batter-runner can run in fair territory when the throw is coming from the foul side of first base, and if hit by the thrown ball, it is not interference." The April 07 rule interpretation tries to clarify this some by stating that "an exception is made when the ball is being thrown from the foul side of first base. In this case, the three-foot running lane transfers to the fair side of the foul line where the runner is protected while running to the white portion of first base."

My questions: (all assuming the throw comes from foul side)
- If the defender sets up on the colored portion, does the running lane "move" to fair side, or does it effectively become 6-feet wide straddling the foul line?
- If the defender sets up on the colored bag, the rule says that the batter-runner "can run in fair territory." If they don't - say they choose to run in foul, and get hit by a thrown ball while in the marked running lane, is it interference? Basically, does it eliminate the batter-runner's protection if they are in the regular running lane as well?

My thought is that the rule interpretation says the running lane "transfers to the fair side" - thereby eliminating the regular lane in foul territory. But in my mind this conflicts with the written rule that the batter-runner "can run in fair territory".

Thoughts?

[AtlUmpSteve]

"A". It become, in effect, a 6' running lane.

As you note, the runner "can", but not "shall" or "must" run in fair territory. The runner is still protected if running in the original running lane, and if she elects to run in the 3' fair territory lane.

As best I can recall, the discussion regarding the interpretation centered on when exactly the runner might know if the defense elected the colored portion, and at what point the runner could or should be mandated to change. The result was to maintain protection for a runner staying in the traditional running lane, and to extend protection when the swap was made by both.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

"A". It become, in effect, a 6' running lane.

As you note, the runner "can", but not "shall" or "must" run in fair territory. The runner is still protected if running in the original running lane, and if she elects to run in the 3' fair territory lane.

As best I can recall, the discussion regarding the interpretation centered on when exactly the runner might know if the defense elected the colored portion, and at what point the runner could or should be mandated to change. The result was to maintain protection for a runner staying in the traditional running lane, and to extend protection when the swap was made by both.

Another aspect is that the BR is not required to know that the throw is coming from foul ground. Please don't ask me to spend time typing ways the ball could be in foul ground w/o the BR knowing.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Another aspect is that the BR is not required to know that the throw is coming from foul ground....

Really?

While I agree with you, that is not what the rule says (when read literally).

Here is an excerpt from the 2007 rule (8-2-E):

When the defensive player uses the colored portion of the double base, the batter-runner can run in fair territory when the throw is coming from the foul side of first base, and if hit by the thrown ball, it is not interference.

To the OP, the proper interp is what Steve said - it becomes a 6' wide running lane.

For NFHS, this make the dodge ball play a little more difficult, too. (that one's for you, WMB!)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

For NFHS, this make the dodge ball play a little more difficult, too. (that one's for you, WMB!)

But NFHS does not mandate a double-base, hence to that side of the house, I would think that the running lane is the running lane no matter where the throw is originating.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But NFHS does not mandate a double-base, hence to that side of the house, I would think that the running lane is the running lane no matter where the throw is originating.

It is by state adoption, but the rule is spelled out (NFHS 8-10) for those states that adopt the rule.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

"A". It become, in effect, a 6' running lane.

As you note, the runner "can", but not "shall" or "must" run in fair territory. The runner is still protected if running in the original running lane, and if she elects to run in the 3' fair territory lane.

I understand. And I agree if using the letter of the rule...

But how do you explain the rule interp. of saying that the lane "transfers" to the fair side? That, to me, means that the whole lane moves from one location to another... and the existing one goes away.

Perhaps a better wording of the rule interp. could have been written?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

Perhaps a better wording of the rule interp. could have been written?

Aw, c'mon... ASA don't need no stinkin' editors!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Aw, c'mon... ASA don't need no stinkin' editors!

Dakota, you owe me some screen wipes after I read that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Thoughts?

Yes, remember the purpose of that clarification. It was prompted by other organizations giving their umpires a different direction and some ASA umpires not keeping it separate. The "clarifcation" (not interpretation) pertained to a throw hitting a runner who was partially outside the lane.

Forget the "clarification", and simply reference 8.2.E. You don't even have to worry about a "lane" as it doesn't even reference how far the lane extends into fair territory when a throw is coming from foul ground and the BR "elects" to run to the white portion of 1B.