Running lane violation or game over?
 

Game tied, bottom of 7th inning.
R1 on 3rd. base. Dropped 3rd strike on batter.
Batter runner is clearly in fair territory outside of running lane on way to 1st base when F2 throws ball over right shoulder into right field.
Running lane violation or game over?
Would your call be any different if it was raining and ball could possibly be wet?

Whose right shoulder?

Was it a quality throw (could F3 have caught it ... and if she could have but didn't, why didn't she)?

Rain and/or wet ball are irrelevant.

Right shoulder of the batter runner. She's not running backwards...
Judgement call on the umpire as to running lane violation, Right?

You've got some of what you need in order to have a running lane violation. Was this a quality throw? Did the BR interfere with the fielder receiving the throw at 1B?
Would the call be any different if raining & maybe a slick ball? No - since the rain was not bad enough for the game to have been stopped. Although those conditions do make it more likely that it was not a quality throw.

Speaking NCAA...game over. 12.2.4.2
Other codes?

Kind of ... you didn't answer this:

Was it a quality throw (could F3 have caught it ... and if she could have but didn't, why didn't she)?

You don't have enough information yet.

Yes, it was a "quality throw" in spite of the fact F3 had to miss the batter runner who was out of the running lane. Please give me definition of a quality throw. F3 would have normally caught it if batter runner was not in fair territory.

This is true.

Had the runner reached the 3' lane yet?
Was the double base in use?
Was the throw from foul territory on the 1B side?
Did the runner actually interfere with a defender's ability to receive the throw at 1B?

One that is directed to a fielder at, or near, first base such that there is a reasonable expectation that the throw is catchable and that it would have recorded an out.

A throw that sails over the fielder, out of her reach, would not be considered as a "quality throw".

xtreamump
 

I have to assume double first base, & I have to assume drop third strike F-2 is making the throw from foul territory. Assuming all of that the BR is helping the defense. Game Over.

As my old sergeant said if wish to live long enough to see tomorrow you will assume nothing. That goes double for umpiring.

But if you wish to use assume logic then bend over and spread them because you are about to get your assumed.

1. Yes, runner was at least 30 feet down baseline.
2. No, double 1st. base was not in use.
3. Throw came from foul territory on 3rd. base side.
4. Based on angle of throw and position of batter runner defender was, in my judgement, interefered with.

xtreamump
 

As my old sergeant said if wish to live long enough to see tomorrow you will assume nothing. That goes double for umpiring.

But if you wish to use assume logic then bend over and spread them because you are about to get your assumed.

All we needed was facts not war stories.

Then you have interference. We were not there. Until you said where the throw was coming from, I think we were all having trouble seeing how a BR that far into fair territory could interfere with a quality throw. Now that we know where it was coming from, it makes a lot more sense. Assuming number 4 above AND a quality throw (F3 could reasonably be assumed to have made the catch had BR not been where he/she was), you have INT.

I'm having a difficult time...
 

I'm having a difficult time seeing this as a quality throw. It seems to me that if the throw was coming from foul territory on third base side and sailed over the right shoulder of the batter runner, then the 1st baseman would have had to go to her left to catch the ball. How far up the 3rd base line was the catcher when she threw the ball? How far out into fair territory was the batter runner? If the ball didn't hit the batter-runner how did she interfere with the fielders ability to catch the ball? Was the fielder's vision obscured? Still not seeing this as interference...yet.

After this statement, I'm curious as to what you (if in fact, you were the umpire) called.

After all of the descriptions, it's still a bit fuzzy to me, but you were there and we were not. All I can say is that all of the elements seem to be present to have an interference call, but without actually seeing the play, it all comes down to the judgement of the umpire on the field.

If you say "Based on angle of throw and position of batter runner defender was, in my judgement, interefered with" then it was INT as long as the BR had reached he lane, so why the question? :confused:


All, visualize a throw from the 3rd side of HP, over a BR who is in FAIR territory, but low enough to be caught by the fielder except for the view blocked by the BR. I think that is what the OP is about. Then, if the BR had reached 30' and blocked the view of the fielder or contacted the ball, I say INT.

I take it that with all your assumptions you are assuming that this was not interference.

Then why "Game Over"? :confused:

The other assumption is the runner scoring from 3rd. I assume. ;)

Granted, I wasn't there... but it sounds like the runner was significantly out into fair territory - in a near direct line between the catcher (foul up the 3BL) and F3. Picture the catcher about 6 feet away from home, and the runner halfway up the line about 3 feet from home and this could easily be INT.

Because the game winning run scored.

Okay, no problem with your judgment, but from an angle from the 3B side, how did the ball end up in right field?

My question as well. Perhaps he meant right field foul territory ... but this post has been lacking in info from the start, so I'm afraid to assume.

Why should you be different? ;) :)

I guess that the first post does imply that...which I had conveniently forgot about by the time I'd read through another twenty posts.

Making sure I'm clear...
The runner was "just running"... no waving or shouting etc &
The throw never touched the runner???

Either way, the BR would have hindered the receiving fielder.

The play involves a running lane violation, not interefering with a thrown ball.

preparing to duck
 

So, you're saying that the accuracy or quality of a throw is irrelevant... if ANY throw is made the ump is required to call interference (running lane violation)?

asking... not arguing

Didn't say that.

There has to be hindrance of the fielder on a throw which the fielder could catch and have a play.

If the defensive player alters her throw as a result of the runner being out of the lane and that complicates the ability of the defender on 1st base to catch the throw, that's interference also.

:cool:I think that is the subject of endless debate...:cool:

The most common example is probably when F2 throws over the runner (who is outside the lane) and the throw is out of reach of the player covering 1st and the ball goes into right field.

Some will call that Running lane interference...... many will not.

Here is the exact wording of the NFHS rule (from 2011):

Citation? Rule set?

The only "stick and ball" game I'm aware of that has that interpretation is high school baseball.

The runner's positioning causes and altered throw, which affects the fielder taking the throw at 1st base. It's not as technically literal as many umpires make it out to be.

That would be like saying that when the catcher drills the BR 35 feet up the base line, BR didn't affect the fielder's ability to take the throw at 1st base. What affected the play was the fact that the catcher threw the ball into BR's back.

The only difference in logic might be how an umpire can interpret what the catcher is doing and why they are doing it (e.g., looping the ball over the runner). Well, that's pretty obvious. Most catchers attempt to throw hard, online throws. That's how you get runners out; not by chucking the ball 20 feet into the air on a rainbow and hoping it lands in the 1st baseman's glove.

It goes right back to the concept of a "quality throw". Just because the batter-runner got hit, it doesn't mean that the throw was directed at the fielder taking it and reasonably catchable. If the B/R is 35 feet up the line, but the throw is angled across the line and away from the fielder (perhaps aimed at the B/R in an attempt to get a cheap out), rather that up the line (directed at a fielder at first base), then it wouldn't be a quality throw and it wouldn't be interference.

But your point isn't obvious. If F2 loops one over the BR and the fielder, such that it can't possibly be caught, are you saying that would be interference because the catcher "altered her throw"? Or, are you saying that it obviously isn't?

We are not about sympathetic judges.
We are about literally objective umpires.

xtreamump
 

Lets call this game over. If this play happens make the call. Now some of you bullies start a thread that we can learn something. I like this site, some of you guys are rough. 13 years & I have had a 3 foot lane violation once. (COME ON MAN)

Bullies?

My, but you must have a delicate constitution.

Seriously...who in this thread is being "bullied"? :confused:

xtreamump
 

I knew it would be you to respond. "PLAY BALL" If we don't agree with one of the three of you guys all you have to say is something about a double negative. Some Umpire's are on here to talk to Brother Umpire's not hear how bad we are at spelling. I am man enough to move on, there are 3 of you guys that will have something to say. I thought that I would get into this Forum and find some good Topix. Show me something.

Please, sir, could you point me to a thread where I have ever commented about your spelling or grammar? Any thread? Ever?

Or, for that matter, find one example where I have ever "bullied" or berated another poster?

You seem to be ticked off about...something? For the life of me I'm not sure what it is.

If you think BretMan is a bully, you either haven't really been reading his posts, or you must have some serious sensitivity issues.

He is anything but.

Understand that you're not arguing and just asking. Check the rule - specifically the part that says, "quality throw".

Nope.

Oversensitive much? I just reread all of his posts - I see nothing even remotely bullyish.

While I agree that we are just starting into the real forum season and some topics have been lacking in softball relevance, there is at least a little to learn in each and reading old ones is not a bad idea.

Yes, I dislike the occasional personal insults, some irrelevant comments, and bickering. I do understand that sometimes an answer is so obvious to our veterans that the response is sometimes a bit curt and seems derogatory. I do know from long experience that the most frequent "answerers" not only know what they are talking about, but do care about the forum helping anyone.

We have a long standing understanding of civility to each other and easily welcome any new member; especially those who can ask a question or state a position in the same civil manner with no antagonism. It is also true that new members can be confused by some of the comments (cracks) we share because we have shared this forum long enough to know each other and in some cases know each other personally.

I believe any perception of bullying or downing is mistaken although there have always been a few posters who are combative or unrealistic in their approach and strain the patience of all of us and thereby invite less than friendly responses. Let's all understand that each of us is different, will express ourselves differently, some more articulate, some more blunt, some with words or expressions used in different backgrounds, some often too cryptic (me for example), etc. That way we will all learn and continue helping each other.

+1

Can we burn Bretman now?

He turned me into a newt.

He weighs the same as a duck.

Paul 

Must be made of wood.

Well said, well written.

xtreamump
 

Thank You, I think that I can learn alot from this Forum. I have to get used to the Idea of talking Softball to an unknown person behind a username. I can tell that you guys know the game. I will get used to it.

Just keep an open mind, and be willing to listen to the criticism you will get here. I guarantee you, you will get plenty of it, but it's not meant to tear you down as an umpire, it's meant to build you up.

I agree. When I first came here, there were a couple of posters on here (whose names I won't mention) who, I thought, were trying to tear me down. I kept thinking, "man, who the eff are these guys, and why are they riding me like this? I'm not a bad umpire, I swear!"

Then I really listened to what they had to say, and I learned a whole hell of a lot more than I ever imagined. It raised my game a LOT, and I even had one of my fellow umpires comment to me about it last week. She said that right between 2007 and 2008 (note that I joined in 2007), it was like night and day, like a light bulb had gone off in my head.

So as I always say, "you can't build something up without first tearing it down." I live by those words, and, as an umpire, they have served me well.

xtreamump
 

Thanks,

Chuck