Running Lane Play

[Andy]

Just want some opinions on whether or not this was handled correctly.

HS game, I'm the BU. No runners on base, batter lays down a bunt. Catcher pops out from behind the plate, fields the ball, and throws to first base. The throw is low and hits the runner in the foot as she is running to first base. She is still about three to four strides from first. I have no doubt that the thrown ball hit the runner. Runner turns at first and goes to second. After the play is complete, it dawns on me that we may have a running lane violation. I go to my partner and ask if the runner was in the lane when the ball hit her, he replies that she ran the entire way from home to first inside the foul line and out of the running lane. We declare the runner out for interference.

My question is whether it was proper for me to go to my partner and ask about the running lane violation when he did not make the call initially?

[greymule]

Obviously, it would have been better had one of you called the running lane violation immediately, but at least you got the call right. Or did you? If the ball hit the runner in the foot 3 or 4 strides from 1B, that doesn't sound like a "quality throw." On the other hand, I don't know that Fed or ASA has, like OBR, defined this rule so thoroughly as to take into account the "quality" of the throw. Or maybe the low throw was still on line and might have been scooped by F3.

Imagine the mess had you called the running lane violation and then decided to reverse yourselves. In your case, if you weren't sure, better to let the play happen and then decide whether there had been a violation.

In doing ASA, I don't call the lane violation unless the runner interferes with the fielder taking a "quality" throw. I don't see any other way to call it, but is that incorrect?

[CecilOne]

ABSOLUTELY!

[CecilOne]

Oops, I didn't see greymule's reply until after I posted mine. My reply was to the original question, not gm's question.
And I agree with gm, but I guess I'll have to look up the quality throw aspect for my own education.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Obviously, it would have been better had one of you called the running lane violation immediately, but at least you got the call right. Or did you? If the ball hit the runner in the foot 3 or 4 strides from 1B, that doesn't sound like a "quality throw." On the other hand, I don't know that Fed or ASA has, like OBR, defined this rule so thoroughly as to take into account the "quality" of the throw. Or maybe the low throw was still on line and might have been scooped by F3.

Imagine the mess had you called the running lane violation and then decided to reverse yourselves. In your case, if you weren't sure, better to let the play happen and then decide whether there had been a violation.

In doing ASA, I don't call the lane violation unless the runner interferes with the fielder taking a "quality" throw. I don't see any other way to call it, but is that incorrect?

Speaking ASA.

Remember, a lane violation involves the defender receiving a thrown ball at 1B. It's not who throws it, but who is receiving it. Just being out of the lane doesn't make the runner out. If the umpire judges that the defender did not have a shot at catching this low throw, it is very possible that there was no violation.

[Panda Bear]

The others have covered the details about whether there actually was interference very well. I would echo Mr. Rowe's observation that there may not have been any violation. Many questions posted here about interference and obstruction, IMO, miss the point that just because a player gets out of position, or there is a near miss or collision involving player(s) and/or the ball, there must be an offense to penalize. Sometimes yes, but sometimes not. Some coaches and players these days seem to have gotten the idea that all such situations are a) intentional, and b) deserve punishment, vs. merely warranting protection.

As to the question, "whether it was proper for me to go to my partner and ask about the running lane violation when he did not make the call initially?", I think you should be aplauded for asking if you weren't sure. There has been a lot of discussion here (and elsewhere) about getting calls right, and one key point is whether the ump./ref asked for help. When there is more than 1 ump., we are a team, & I believe we should actually work together. In almost all cases, I have found credibility goes up, and subsequent complaints down, when partners confer, especially when the call in question might be key to the outcome.

[Del-Blue]

Andy,

As to the question did you handle the situation correct, I think you did. If you were not sure if she was out of the lane, you were correct to wait until the play was over. On the other hand, if no one else was on base, I believe it should have been the PU's call in the first place. He should have been trailing the play, and should have seen it.
I also like Mike's answer, If the first base person couldn't catch the ball to begin with, I probably would not make the call, that would have to be a HTBT play.

The fact that after your discussion, she was called out, leads me to believe the PU should have made the call.

Bob

[WestMichiganBlue]

Seems as though a lot of Blue do not want to make that call on a runner down the first base line; afraid to "reward" the defense for making a poor play.

Remember that Interference is IMMEDIATE dead ball; you don't wait around to judge the end of the play. In this situation, you have no clue whether or not the fielder could have caught the ball; she never had a chance. The ball hit the runner which prevented the fielder from making a play.

Note that the runner is protected when she is within the 3' lane. The thrower is required to adjust her throw to get around the runner if she wants to get an out. But if the runner is in the fielder's territory (outside the 3'lane)then the thrower should not have to adjust; she should, by rule, have a clear path to first base. If the runner gets in the way - don't protect the runner!

WMB

[ronald]

Ok my two cents worth.

At out rules clinic, Chick Montrose said interference is called when the runner interferes with the 1st baseman's opportunity to receive the throw. So in the case cited if the low throw was on line to the first basement then I would say that the opportunity to receive the throw was interfered with and call an out. But as Mike says it's not automatic and you have to take a look at the throw to determine if there is an opportunity to receive the throw. If that opportunity does not exist, then there is no interference as I understand it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichiganBlue
Seems as though a lot of Blue do not want to make that call on a runner down the first base line; afraid to "reward" the defense for making a poor play.

Remember that Interference is IMMEDIATE dead ball; you don't wait around to judge the end of the play. In this situation, you have no clue whether or not the fielder could have caught the ball; she never had a chance. The ball hit the runner which prevented the fielder from making a play.

Note that the runner is protected when she is within the 3' lane. The thrower is required to adjust her throw to get around the runner if she wants to get an out. But if the runner is in the fielder's territory (outside the 3'lane)then the thrower should not have to adjust; she should, by rule, have a clear path to first base. If the runner gets in the way - don't protect the runner!

WMB

WMB,

I think you are misreading the posts. No one has remotely suggested waiting for the result of the play or ignoring the interference.

You may be looking at the wrong end of the play. The rule book is specific that for the BR to be ruled out is totally reliant on whether their action interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B (ASA 8.2.E). Nowhere does it say anything about interfering with the actual throw unless intentional (8.2.F). The reason for this is that the BR would become a virtual target for all pitchers and catchers when there is a play near the line. And, yes, many of us have heard the coaches scream, "hit her with the ball" at one time or another.

We are not proposing ignoring the interference, just calling it for what it is as defined by the rule.

[WestMichiganBlue]

MIKE: I think you are misreading the posts. No one has remotely suggested waiting for the result of the play

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. What I wanted to say is that you are pre-judging the results of the play, suggesting that the fielder may not catch a bad throw.

MIKE: If the umpire judges that the defender did not have a shot at catching this low throw, it is very possible that there was no violation.

The ball hit the runner; otherwise we probably have no call. Therefore that ball was anywhere from zero to 6'-7' off the ground, and in-line with the thrower and the fielder at 1B. I will make no assumptions about the ability of the fielder to make that catch IF the ball get to her.

MIKE: You may be looking at the wrong end of the play. . . . for the BR to be ruled out is totally reliant on whether their action interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B

I think that you are reading that too narrow. It would suggest that the runner must be on top of (or close) to the fielder to directly interfer with her. But the rule covers a violation that may occur anywhere up to 30' away (the length of the 3' lane). IMHO, if the ball is stopped or deflected away, that action has prevented the fielder from making the play.

I am trying to judge the "intent" of the rule. It seems to me that the rules makers wanted to guarantee the runner a direct path to 1B, which then required the fielder to adjust their throw to miss the runner. But if the runner is out of her "safe" zone and ends up in a direct line from the thrower to the receiver, then she is no longer protected. Even if she is not hit by the throw. If the ball zings by her ear or under her arm the fielder may not pick up sight of the ball soon enough to make the catch. IMO, that could be interference.

Now, admittedly, that is "seeing the result" of the play. But it happens so fast. The throw goes by the runner and the fielder misses it in a fraction of a second - you're throwing up your hands and killing the play.

Remember this was a POE for FED ball last spring. We were instructed to enforce this. We covered it in pre-game. Maybe we called it a little too liberally, but the effects were to get those runners back into the lane (especially sub-varsity). We called it, and the coaches coached it. I also think that it was a safety issue. Most FP softball batters are forward in the batter's box, and then run a line from that point to 1B, all in fair territory, on a collision course with F4. By forcing the issue, we found that batters were running the lane even when the throw was from somewhere other than behind them.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestMichiganBlue

MIKE: If the umpire judges that the defender did not have a shot at catching this low throw, it is very possible that there was no violation.

The ball hit the runner; otherwise we probably have no call. Therefore that ball was anywhere from zero to 6'-7' off the ground, and in-line with the thrower and the fielder at 1B. I will make no assumptions about the ability of the fielder to make that catch IF the ball get to her.

Actually, the scenario to which I was responding specifically stated that the ball hit the BR in the foot. I just raised the possibility of it not being interference, I never stated that it wasn't. I agree that no assumptions on the 1B ability should come into play.

MIKE: You may be looking at the wrong end of the play. . . . for the BR to be ruled out is totally reliant on whether their action interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B

I think that you are reading that too narrow. It would suggest that the runner must be on top of (or close) to the fielder to directly interfer with her. But the rule covers a violation that may occur anywhere up to 30' away (the length of the 3' lane). IMHO, if the ball is stopped or deflected away, that action has prevented the fielder from making the play.

I am trying to judge the "intent" of the rule. It seems to me that the rules makers wanted to guarantee the runner a direct path to 1B, which then required the fielder to adjust their throw to miss the runner. But if the runner is out of her "safe" zone and ends up in a direct line from the thrower to the receiver, then she is no longer protected. Even if she is not hit by the throw. If the ball zings by her ear or under her arm the fielder may not pick up sight of the ball soon enough to make the catch. IMO, that could be interference.

I believe I am reading it exactly how it was meant to play out. The rule book couldn't be more specific and since I wasn't involved in the wording of this rule, I will accept as published unless directed otherwise. There is no rule effecting an out just for the BR being hit by a thrown ball while out of the lane unless intentional on behalf of the runner. The runner can only be called out for interfering with the ability of the defender covering 1B to make an out.

Now, admittedly, that is "seeing the result" of the play. But it happens so fast. The throw goes by the runner and the fielder misses it in a fraction of a second - you're throwing up your hands and killing the play.

The key here is knowing the players and where they are on the field. If there is no one covering 1B or that individual is, in your judgment going to arrive too late to get an out, there is no interference. If the kid throwing the ball couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the ball from 5', you are going to want to see her actually throw the ball in the direction of 1B.

Remember this was a POE for FED ball last spring. We were instructed to enforce this. We covered it in pre-game. Maybe we called it a little too liberally, but the effects were to get those runners back into the lane (especially sub-varsity). We called it, and the coaches coached it. I also think that it was a safety issue. Most FP softball batters are forward in the batter's box, and then run a line from that point to 1B, all in fair territory, on a collision course with F4. By forcing the issue, we found that batters were running the lane even when the throw was from somewhere other than behind them.

WMB


The last thing I remember about the Fed's push on this rule was calling a walked BR out for a lane violation. This topic was raised, and mocked, at almost every clinic or school I attended whether NFHS or ASA.

And, while you brought up the subject, every BR is on a collision course with F4 or whichever player is covering 1B regardless of where they start or run and that will never change until the coaches start teaching the girls how to play the position.

Why is it that they don't seem to have this type of problem with the boys? It isn't because they have farther to run, but because they are taught the proper mechanics at 1B.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, WMB.

[greymule]

Mike, what kind of play could have a walked batter committing a lane violation?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Mike, what kind of play could have a walked batter committing a lane violation?

According to Fed interpretation (unless they have changed and didn't mention it in the clinics) is that when a batter receives a pass, they can be ruled out if not within the confines of the three foot lane if they interfere with the catcher's throw to 1B.

Unless intentional, I think it is an absurd ruling. There is no imminent play at 1B, so if the catcher chooses to throw down there instead of back to the pitcher, they should be doing so at their own peril.

JMHO,

[greymule]

I am with you 100 percent on that one, Mike. To me, "the throw" so obviously means "the throw to retire the batter-runner," that the words don't have to be written down. How can BR interfere with a play when there is no play?

Let's throw their own rule at them. Doesn't it say, ". . . in running the last half of the distance to 1B"? What if the BR is walking?