Jump to content



Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Photo
- - - - -

Running Lane Violation?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 mstaylor

mstaylor

    Crew Chief

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,115 posts
  • Joined 27-August 08
  • LocationSalisbury,MD


Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:06 PM

You both are saying the same thing. Rich is saying interference must be intentional. catsbackr is saying that being way out of the line could put him in a place to create an interference. What needs to be qualified between the two is by being way inside, that in itself won't be interference. Offensive indifference isn't really a possiblilty here either. This last sentence is the only arguable part of the equation.
Posted Image


Register or Sign In to remove these ads

#22 alex7

alex7
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Joined 09-July 09
  • LocationSouthern Oregon
  • Your Association Name :RVUA, NCUA, GVC, WCL


Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:11 AM

ehh. It's baaaaaarely worth talking about anymore. But Rich is right. It doens't matter if he's 6 feet inside, 6 feet outside, or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference. It makes no difference where he's at, intent is all that matters.

#23 yawetag

yawetag
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined 02-August 08
  • LocationSt. Louis, MO
  • Your Association Name :GSLAU


Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:13 AM

or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference.


Elaborate, please. AFAIK, being on the line is being in the lane.
Andrew Senger
MSHSAA Certified Baseball Umpire
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. He's also postmaster and probably traffic cop, too. All the jobs for sports referees are probably filled, though." --Lemel Hebert-Williams

#24 johnnyg08

johnnyg08
  • Moderators
  • 4,656 posts
  • Joined 13-February 11


Posted 06 February 2012 - 06:59 AM

COULD theoretically


Don't think so.
I'm not where I need to be, but not where I used to be.

#25 sdix00

sdix00
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,878 posts
  • Joined 11-November 10
  • LocationMoreno Valley, CA


Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:55 AM

ehh. It's baaaaaarely worth talking about anymore. But Rich is right. It doens't matter if he's 6 feet inside, 6 feet outside, or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference. It makes no difference where he's at, intent is all that matters.


As Yawtag requested, please elaborate.

I am probably visualizing something else, but I do not agree with the quoted passage.

Sigh

_____________
umpire+shows+up+puig+-+gifforum.gif


#26 ukce1861

ukce1861

    Premium Member

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts
  • Joined 09-January 10
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:21 AM

If he is running where


ehh. It's baaaaaarely worth talking about anymore. But Rich is right. It doens't matter if he's 6 feet inside, 6 feet outside, or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference. It makes no difference where he's at, intent is all that matters.


As Yawtag requested, please elaborate.

I am probably visualizing something else, but I do not agree with the quoted passage.

If he is running where he's running to create interference, and you judge it intentional, then you can call him out for interference.

Now, it seems to me it would have to be very obvious (like running half way to the pitcher's mound) or he would have to do something else (like wave his arms) for me to judge intent.

The other thing is the fielder is protected while fielding the ball, so if the runner is running directly at the fielder then he could be interfering anyway.

#27 mstaylor

mstaylor

    Crew Chief

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,115 posts
  • Joined 27-August 08
  • LocationSalisbury,MD


Posted 06 February 2012 - 02:48 PM

Guys, you are confusing the discussion. The running lane is relevant only when the play is going to first. In that case, on the line is in the lane. Once the play is coming back home, the running is not to be considered, it has NOTHING to do with the play. The location of the runner going to first is irrelevant to interference. Do something intentional, waving arms, adjusting his path suddenly or something else odd is what you are judging.
Ball going to first, running lane is in effect, ball going first to home, running lane is immaterial.
Posted Image

#28 alex7

alex7
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Joined 09-July 09
  • LocationSouthern Oregon
  • Your Association Name :RVUA, NCUA, GVC, WCL


Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:36 PM

That's what I was getting it. That it doesn't matter whether he's 6 feet inside, or outside, or in the running lane, if the play isn't going to first.

Just intent after that.

#29 noumpere

noumpere
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,556 posts
  • Joined 14-April 09


Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

FED Rules

I need a clarification on this one. The running lane rule from the FED Case Book 8.4.1.G talks about throws to 1B.
But what about this situation: R1 on 3B, no outs, grounder to F3 near the line in back of 1B. F3 throws to F2, but the BR is outside the running lane and throw is wild because F3 didn’t want to hit BR. Is this a running lane violation or interference or neither?


Im just back in country and dont have access to my books yet but Im certain that there is one or more cases directly as your play. The others who have posted that this is not a running lane violation are correct.

#30 Don

Don
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined 02-May 09
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:18 PM

The running lane violation should only apply to throws to 1b from around the plate area, typically bunts, so typically they will be fielded by F5, F1, or F3 and usually F2.

Intent of BR is irrelevant, where he is when hit is and who threw the ball is. The only interp I am aware of in FED where a quality throw is not required is if a fielder throws over the head of F3 into RF. If he gets plunked by the catcher to the right of running lane 10' from 1b that is not going to be RL violation because it was not a quality throw and not covered by a FED case play (over F3 head).

#31 mstaylor

mstaylor

    Crew Chief

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,115 posts
  • Joined 27-August 08
  • LocationSalisbury,MD


Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:15 PM

Don, you are correct that the running lanes is involved with a throw going to first. The OP is about it coming back to the plate from first base. At that point the running lane is no longer an issue.
Now, when you were discussing the running lane I believe you may be misguided or I am reading it wrong. In OBR you are judging the ability of F3 to catch the ball so the quality of the throw is important. In FED you are judging the fielder's ability to throw to first so the quality is not needed.
Posted Image

#32 jjskitours

jjskitours
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Joined 01-August 11

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:04 PM

I'm looking for a case play that addresses the quality of the throw when there is a running lane violation. I've read a number of times that under FED, F2's throw can sail over the head of F3 and there could still be interference / running lane violation on the part of the batter-runner. Anyone have a good source to support this FED rule since it differs from MLB and NCAA rules.



#33 Jimurray

Jimurray
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined 09-November 10


Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:40 PM

FED 2010 interps

SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g

#34 jjskitours

jjskitours
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Joined 01-August 11

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:20 PM

Thanks. I knew I had read this before, but how did you come up with it so quick.



#35 Jimurray

Jimurray
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined 09-November 10


Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:39 AM

Thanks. I knew I had read this before, but how did you come up with it so quick.

I had to look it up for an earlier thread. But, if you go here: http://www.stevetheu.../NFHS_rules.htm and use your browser's "find on this page" and enter the appropriate phrase, in this case "running lane" you will get every relevant ruling from 2007 to 2013. He has another page for years prior to that. Kudos again to Steve the Ump.



#36 UmpJM

UmpJM
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • Joined 08-December 08


Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:50 AM

Jim,

 

Thanks for posting that link, and I'll second the kudos to Steve.

 

JM


"Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

#37 Jimurray

Jimurray
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined 09-November 10


Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:27 PM

I've posted it before and it was appreciated but I think this site should have a link to it. No never mind, I'll do the search and take the credit for thumbing the pages, or, having total recall.

#38 stl_ump

stl_ump
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts
  • Joined 07-January 10
  • Your Association Name :CBSA - Chesterfield, MO

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:38 PM

Speaking of running lane... would this apply on a throw from F2 on a dropped (uncaught) thrid strike?

Thanks


2014 games - 219

2014 rainouts - 30

2014 heatouts - 2  106o

 

2013 games - 223 1/2

2013 rainouts - 64

 

 

 

 


#39 noumpere

noumpere
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,556 posts
  • Joined 14-April 09


Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:46 PM

Speaking of running lane... would this apply on a throw from F2 on a dropped (uncaught) thrid strike?

Thanks

Yes.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users