runner's lane interference

[Gfoley4]

I noticed this play yesterday during the cubs game that was not ruled as interference. Do you agree with the call? All codes? How about if the throw was on the fair side of first, and clips the runner's arm? 

[jlutgen0]

I agree with the call. If the throw is to the inside they'd get the call but with the first baseman setup inside and a bad throw to the outside I don't have interference. 

[Stk004]

Hmm..... the BR is definitely out of the runners lane. The throw isn't a great throw, but it seems like Zimmerman could've reached over and caught it had the runner not been in the way. Now, if the runner was in the runners lane Zimmerman probably wouldn't have gotten over there either, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that Zimmerman recoiled his arm instead of continuing to reach over to take the throw. Unless the throw was so far offline that Zimmerman had no play on it, as would be determined by PU, it appears the BR hindered the ability of Zimmerman to take the throw, and thus would be guilty of RLI. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, jlutgen0 said:

I agree with the call. If the throw is to the inside they'd get the call but with the first baseman setup inside and a bad throw to the outside I don't have interference. 

This

[Stk004]

10 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

Hmm..... the BR is definitely out of the runners lane. The throw isn't a great throw, but it seems like Zimmerman could've reached over and caught it had the runner not been in the way. Now, if the runner was in the runners lane Zimmerman probably wouldn't have gotten over there either, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that Zimmerman recoiled his arm instead of continuing to reach over to take the throw. Unless the throw was so far offline that Zimmerman had no play on it, as would be determined by PU, it appears the BR hindered the ability of Zimmerman to take the throw, and thus would be guilty of RLI. 

Okay so I watched the video again, this time all the way through. I saw the angle from the third base dugout, and Zimmerman doesn't seem too interested in making an effort to receive that throw. I'd still defer judgement to PU real time, moving up the first base line, and he ruled that the throw wasn't a quality throw that could retire the runner. Or that the BR didn't hinder Zimmerman. Or both. Baker seemed satisfied with the explanation he got. 

[Cav]

I've got RLI if it were a NFHS game. 

[VolUmp]

2 hours ago, Cav said:

I've got RLI if it were a NFHS game. 

So do I, because a quality throw is not required in FED. 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

So do I, because a quality throw is not required in FED. 

I don't.  This was simply an errant throw.  The runner's position didn't interfere with either the throw, or F3 receiving it.  I got nothin.

[Cav]

2010 NFHS 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)

[VolUmp]

33 minutes ago, Cav said:

but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g)

Cav, I hope you were pointing out the fact that the word "quality" does not appear here. That makes this play in the Cubs-Nats video clip RLI under FED rules.

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, Cav said:

I've got RLI if it were a NFHS game. 

Yep -- that's easy.

8 hours ago, VolUmp said:

So do I, because a quality throw is not required in FED in this instance.

FIFY.

7 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I don't.  This was simply an errant throw.  The runner's position didn't interfere with either the throw, or F3 receiving it.  I got nothin.

Doesn't matter in FED.  If the runner is between (more or less) F2 and F3 AND the runner is out of the lane, it's (almost) always going to be RLI in FED.

[maven]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Doesn't matter in FED.  If the runner is between (more or less) F2 and F3 AND the runner is out of the lane, AND there's a throw, it's (almost) always going to be RLI in FED.

FIFY.

But I agree: FED doesn't require a quality throw because they don't want fielders throwing at runners.

The FED rule can lead to some interesting conversations when enforced correctly after F2 sails a throw into RF.

[noumpere]

29 minutes ago, maven said:

FIFY.

 

Thanks.  I left it out to see if anyone other than you would catch it. 

 

(That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

[grayhawk]

7 hours ago, maven said:

FIFY.

But I agree: FED doesn't require a quality throw because they don't want fielders throwing at runners.

The FED rule can lead to some interesting conversations when enforced correctly after F2 sails a throw into RF.

This whole "quality throw" argument is based on language in the rules that say the infraction is ignored if the act doesn't interfere with a throw.  Though Fed wants it called in more cases than anyone else, it's still not automatic.  If the fielder threw the ball into the dugout, 30 feet behind the runner, I would hope that nobody on this board would be calling RLI in a Fed game.  If that's the case, we can still judge an errant throw that is closer to the base, but in our judgment, not affected by the runner's position out of the lane.

[maven]

51 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

This whole "quality throw" argument is based on language in the rules that say the infraction is ignored if the act doesn't interfere with a throw.  Though Fed wants it called in more cases than anyone else, it's still not automatic.  If the fielder threw the ball into the dugout, 30 feet behind the runner, I would hope that nobody on this board would be calling RLI in a Fed game.  If that's the case, we can still judge an errant throw that is closer to the base, but in our judgment, not affected by the runner's position out of the lane.

Although I agree with your exaggerated case, I'm surprised to see you press the more general point. You're usually the person who emphasizes that FED includes the concept of hindering the throw, and not only hindering the fielder taking the throw, in its definition of RLI: "This infraction is ignored if ... the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" (8-4-1g).

When a fielder is forced to throw around a BR who is out of the lane, FED counts the infraction as RLI.

[grayhawk]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

Although I agree with your exaggerated case, I'm surprised to see you press the more general point. You're usually the person who emphasizes that FED includes the concept of hindering the throw, and not only hindering the fielder taking the throw, in its definition of RLI: "This infraction is ignored if ... the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" (8-4-1g).

When a fielder is forced to throw around a BR who is out of the lane, FED counts the infraction as RLI.

I agree with the bolded statement 100%, with the caveat that it's umpire judgment whether the fielder was forced to throw around him, or if he simply made an errant throw.  All I am saying is that it's not automatic, and in the OP, my judgment is that it was just an errant throw.

[VolUmp]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

All I am saying is that it's not automatic.

Agreed (in FED).

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

... and in the OP, my judgment is that it was just an errant throw

Not sure I agree.  I've watched the video 20 times and sometimes an errant throw is caused - or even partially caused - because you don't have a clear throwing lane.  There is no good reason that an MLB player should be allowed to run left of the running lane (fair ground) for 20 feet, and then slide into it as he's touching 1B.  And I'm a Cubs' fan.  Regardless of whether the throw was errant 100% independently from the B-R, or only partially caused by the B-R, the benefit of the doubt should go to the defense ... apart from the hyperbole of your example of throwing into the dugout.

I've always laughed at football fans who aren't students of the game who will say, "We just lost a 47-yard-run ... stupid ref called holding."

Well ... chicken or the egg?  Maybe the run would have been for -4 yards without the hold???

[mwest5575]

I still think it was RLI under OBR. Looked like Zimmerman lost the ball behind the runner and also pulled his glove arm back into his body to avoid a collision with the BR. It was a crap throw but I'd give the benefit to the defense since there's absolutely no reason for the BR to be inside the lines. 

I guess I'm saying BR was not where he should have been so rather than debate whether F3 may or may not have been able to catch the ball is putting the burden too much on the defense when the offense has interfered. Unless the throw is airmailed into right field if it's close enough to wonder give the benefit to the defense. Run where you're supposed to run.