ASA - running lane violation with a walk

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by Steve M

Cecil,
This was posted on Fed's web site. I don't know if it is still there, but I'm pretty sure it was there for the 2001 & 2002 seasons.

Steve M

It was also listed in the POE section in the 2002 book. Don't know where it went in the 2003 book as I don't have that one with me right now.

SamC

[whiskers_ump]

Quoting from the 2002 NFHS Rule Book:

"Point of Emphasis

2. Awarded Bases - 3-Foot Lane - When there is a base-on-
balls award, the batter-runner is required to use the 3 -
foot running lane. A walk is treated the same as a batted
ball. When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot
lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with
the fielder tking or receiving a throw to first base,
interference shall be called.

glen

[WestMichBlue]

I realize this thread is three weeks old, but I decided to re-read this post after Dakota make a typical derogatory statement on another board ("they (NFHS) have the diamond sports world's dumbest possible interpretation of a running lane violation after a base on balls.")

It seems as though half of this thread was in trying to define the ASA position, and half was NFHS bashing. I think that maybe Cecil was the only one that had it right by saying "its history, folks!"

From a NFHS perspective, I agree that a walked batter (batter-runner) can not be charged with interference prior to reaching 1B. I base that on my 2003 books.

8.2.5 says a batter-runner is out if: "She runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. And 8.2.6 says that: "A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

ASA has the indentical wording, except that "she" is replaced by "batter-runner." Both books say that a batter becomes a batter-runner when a fourth ball is called by the umpire.

NFHS Casebook 8.2.6, covering a slightly different situation, states that "Since no play is made on (batter-runner) at first base, 8.2.5 does not apply.

I believe I can take that statement and apply it to a walked batter-runner when the catcher is throwing the ball to 1B. Because the B-R has been awarded 1B, no play can be made on her until, and if she goes past 1B. (ie., trying to draw a throw and get a runner home from 3B.) Thus the catcher is simply trying to relocate the ball for a future possible play should the batter try to advance. Thus - if no play is being made on the B-R at 1B, 8.2.5 does not apply.

I believe that is the NFHS position in 2003. Does anyone have access to anything (written) that disagrees?

WMB



[Edited by WestMichBlue on Sep 25th, 2003 at 12:01 AM]

[SC Ump]

All this discussion is because of an interpretation that was posted on the NFHS web site at the beginning of last year, and was also past out in pre-season literature at least in S.C., that stated this official interpretation. The interpretation specifically mentioned the play in question.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I realize this thread is three weeks old, but I decided to re-read this post after Dakota make a typical derogatory statement on another board ...

Trying to start a flame war with me WMB?

Posted by WMB on this same "another board" {Tom has been} Following me from board to board, then posting a negative comment immediately under whatever I post.

Hmmmm. Unlike your baiting of me on that "other" board, I'm not taking the bait this time. Find someone else. Take it to the baseball board. Or even better, McGriffs (if there is anyone left there).