3 Foot Lane

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Depends (on the umpire's judgment). Was this a wild throw, or did the BR interfere with the fielder taking the throw at 1B? Note that the running lane interference is with the fielder at 1B, not with the fielder making the throw. Wild throw is just that - a wild throw, not interference. ASA 8-2-E.

B1 is nowhere near F3 nor is she gesturing, yelling etc.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

B1 is nowhere near F3 nor is she gesturing, yelling etc.

As Dakota said "Wild throw is just that - a wild throw, not interference. ASA 8-2-E.".
Looks like a no-call to me.

[KJUmp]

Speaking NCAA...Ditto Dakota and CecilOne.
NCAA 12.2.4.2

[BretMan]

Agree with the ASA interpretation. Will take your word for it on the NCAA version.

Didn't NFHS at one time publish an interpretation that if the runner is out of the lane and the umpire judges that is the reason for a bad throw, then it could be ruled as interference?

For example: B/R is out of lane and catcher throws over her head to avoid hitting her, which in turn causes the throw to sail over the head of the fielder receiving the throw. Since the runner's position may have caused the bad throw, you could rule that as interference.

Or am I "misremembering"?

[WestMichiganBlue]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Didn't NFHS at one time publish an interpretation that if the runner is out of the lane and the umpire judges that is the reason for a bad throw, then it could be ruled as interference?

Or am I "misremembering"?

Your memory is good, but you have to go back over 30 years when the Fed book said that a "Runner is out . . . when she runs outside the three-foot running lane while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base."

However, there was a caveat: "This infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw."

That went out in 2002 when Rule 8 was re-written to align with ASA Rule 8.

Speaking ASA, this was a subject of a lot of interest at the last NUS I attended. Kevin discussed it in his presentation, and clinician Steve Rollins held a lengthy drill focusing on this issue.

At that NUS, the ASA position was very clear - IF the runner is outside the 3-foot lane and the fielder could not handle the throw - CALL IT! We ran that drill many times; we never hit the runner, but everytime Steve insisted that we call interference.

Basically the positon is that if the runner is NOT where she belongs so she gets no help; benefit of doubt goes to the fielder.

Of course if umpires will not make this call, catcher's know what they have to do. Rather than risk an error, they will ding the runner and force the umpire to make the call.

WMB

[jane347]

Share a good website with you,
www.voguesale.com

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

At that NUS, the ASA position was very clear - IF the runner is outside the 3-foot lane and the fielder could not handle the throw - CALL IT! We ran that drill many times; we never hit the runner, but everytime Steve insisted that we call interference.

But did Steve do that because it was a drill or was every instance of the drill decisively INT?

Basically the positon is that if the runner is NOT where she belongs so she gets no help; benefit of doubt goes to the fielder.

Absolutely, but there must also BE interference. I believe the point that was attempted is if it is just a bad throw, you don't automatically reward the defense because a runner wasn't between the pipes.

In spite of the many recent changes in some org. that seem, IMO, an attempt to dummy down the rules to reduce the amount of judgment necessary by making certain acts "automatic" calls, I think the umpire needs to use their judgment and make the correct call.

If you stayed for the entire session (NUS), you probably heard common sense referenced a couple of times. This is the type of call where an umpire must see, evaluate and rule on all portions of the event which just occurred without prejudice or predetermination.

Of course if umpires will not make this call, catcher's know what they have to do. Rather than risk an error, they will ding the runner and force the umpire to make the call.

Again, another instance why we get the big bucks Most of these players, male, female, adult or youth, couldn't mask an intentional throw at the runner if they wanted to. And making that call if such a play occurs can only add to the integrity of the game, that is, unless they are playing kick ball.

The teams rely upon the umpire to make the correct call, but I can tell you, many scoff at that idea. Those who visit other sites will recognize my reference to many a player/coach/parent who swear the umpires in their area will NOT make the difficult call. Of course, I take this criticism with a grain of salt, but in some instances, it is not a lie. Granted, we must survive, but when it comes down to it, how can an umpire be dinged for making the right call?

How many times to we hear, "you can't call that now" or "you don't make that call in this type of game" or "how can you end a game on a call like that", etc.? Have you even noticed that no one argues that the call is wrong, but just untimely for THEIR team.

Umpires need to do their job. Yes, there needs to be common sense applied to the game, as well, but not to the point that certain violations are completely ignored.

[WestMichiganBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But did Steve do that because it was a drill or was every instance of the drill decisively INT?

Because it was a drill. Like all drills, it didn't perfectly reflect game conditions. What Steve was trying to do was "drill" in to umpire's minds that they could call interference even if the runner wasn't hit by the ball.

... if it is just a bat throw, you don't automatically reward the defense because a runner wasn't between the pipes.

Agreed, but - a "bad throw" in this situation is an umpire judgment. IMO, an umpire that does not want to call interference (absent contact) is prejudiced towards a bad throw judgment. So if F2 throws the ball over the runner's head and it sails over the top of F4 at 1B, that's a bad throw! But take the runner out of the way and most of us will agree that any decent catcher can make a glove high throw from 40' or 50'.

This is the type of call where an umpire must see, evaluate and rule on all portions of the event which just occurred without prejudice or predetermination.

I agree, and I fully agree with the rest of your philosophical discussion about common sense and making the difficult call, regardless of game circumstances.

But it is my opinion that too many umpires need to see contact (or physical reaction) before they are willing to call obstruction or interference.

I.e., a fielder, runner, and batted ball all moving towards the same spot. The runner doesn't stop; the fielder pulls up and both runner and ball go on through. "She was in my way, Blue!" "Sorry young lady, I can't read your mind; you have to show me that you were attempting to field the ball."

That fielder now knows that next time she will not pull up to avoid contact; instead she will continue into the collision, and force the umpire to make the call.

How many times have we heard coaches telling their players to "run into them and get the call?" "If they are in your way, hit them with the ball and get the call."

Yes, that is why we "get the big bucks," Mike. But how many umpires are willing to risk getting run off the field when they make that controversial "no contact" obstruction or interference call? The fans and coaches are not going to see, or understand the technical nuances of a non-contact call; if you want to survive you probably don't make that call.

WMB