NFHS 3' Lane Presentation
 

Attended a HS clinic and the 3' lane presentation just rubbed me the wrong way and it wasn't the #?&@$ interpretation concerning INT on a walk.

The presentation, including overhead display, stressed that the BR is required to run in the 3' lane the last half of the distance to 1B. Even highlighted the word MUST on the screen as in the runner MUST run in the 3' lane.

This just is not true in any level of softball or baseball of which I am familiar. At no point is a runner ever REQUIRED to run in the 3' lane. The 3' lane only provides a safe haven path to 1B the runner may utilize to avoid an interference violation.

What was their suggested call for a BR running outside of the lane? Dead ball, out?

the best way to handle this vexation is to smile and finish your coffee and doughnut. doing nothing sometimes works best when you least expect it.

I hope you didn't flip out and ask for the presenters credentials.

No, it was noted that if it interferred with the defender taking a throw at first she was out. The problem was the statement in general and the fact that the slide showing the comment stood alone without mention of the interference part.

I talked to the Fed rules interpreter (who is also one of my deputies which some of you know) and she agreed that the presentation was poorly worded, but it is what the NFHS provided, so it is what is given. I try not to interfere with her clinic and usually limit myself to one question per (and she hates that :D ) and I already used up my self-imposed limit.

Part of my issue here is that the state HS association puts the coaches and umpires together for this clinic and I can just see a coach arguing a runner should be out because she did not run in the 3' lane. Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous, but so is, "she turned left, she's out" argument from some coaches, but we still get that on the field.

I can also see some inexperienced umpire buying into the bull because s/he wasn't paying attention. The umpire side can be handled via additional clinic prior to the season, assuming they attend.

We have all experienced the debate among experienced umpires over something as simple as "will vs. shall vs. may" wording. The umpire will understand (hopefully) the correct application through clinics and meetings. But we don't need to have an on-field argument and protest from a coach simply because an administrator did not set-up a presentation correctly.

any coach during a game that so much as hints at breaking out a rulebook better be prepared to do so under formal protest.

you think during a game someone will argue and break out some slides? :eek:

No, but if they are told at a clinic that's being conducted by the ruling organization that the rule requires the BR to run in the lane at all times, who are they going to believe? The unrecognizable umpire with the actual correct ruling? Or the clinician, who was sent by the ruling body to dispel all rumors and misconceptions about the rules?

If you're an umpire, you know exactly what kind of mess this will create. Hell, we have our hands full with enough bogus rule interpretations that DIDN'T come from the ruling organization.

I see no mess. I would love to hear a coach refer to a clinic as a rule.

it's not uncommon. In Florida our online Rules Presentation is required for all umpires and for head coaches. Coaches have often asked us questions about something in the presentation, or asserted that "FHSAA said in the Rules Presentation ...."

common or uncommon, during a game, what is the reply to that coach? protest, or play ball.

I agree that we should keep things moving along at gametime. Our point is that this never should have been an issue to begin with. Clinicians should not knowingly give blatantly incorrect rule interpretations, as this will cause nothing but problems for us come gametime.

yes, agreed, short of throwing a fellow umpire under the bus.

I just can't see how clarifying a point towards a fellow umpire in the presence of coaches, or other umpires for that matter can help. it's called professional courtesy. kindly ask for clarification, and then move on, and let the presenter finish.

demanding clarification while a presenter has the floor to me is just not right to me. I have no justification for how I feel about it, but it just seems flat out wrong.

but this is an anonymous forum. I can say what I want. :cool:

Tangent much? How is this relevant to this thread so far?

I see no tangent, I immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time, which to me is nada. this doesn't mean do nothing ever, it means, not at that time.

as I suggested from my first reply, and IMHO, this is about "saving face" vs. saving the message. the message was already out. to the OP, it might seem urgent to contain damage by putting a fellow umpire on the spot, right on the spot, meaning, the message is more important than the messenger. I don't see it that way, and that is no tangent. it is simply a point of view that might or might no differ from what you might or might not see.

I had a coach present this very argument to me a few years ago in a rec league game. BR hit a single to the outfield and made a wide looping turn around 1B. he wanted me to call her out for being out of the 3' line. When i told him she could run into center field if she wanted to his response was" oh yah, then why to they have a 3' foot line there!"

I told him to read the rule book again.

The tangent is that you "immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time" based on the bias that YOU read into the OP. Without that bias, your point is unnecessary and irrelevant. . .thus a tangent.