Register or Sign In to remove these ads

11 posts in this topic

I was reading the other thread about the RLI called in a Little League game.  The discussion went briefly to the HS interpretation of the ruling.  I thought I would move over to the High School section to continue that part of the discussion to avoid high jacking the other thread. There was a quotation in one of the posts that quoted and interp from 2004:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)"

My confusion over this interpretation is that I thought in FED that quality of throw is not a factor when determining RLI.  I also note that in the 2017 Rule Book, there is no exception listed to 8-4-1g.  I think this ruling should correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this ruling conforms with the rule as written.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
6 minutes ago, refump10 said:

My confusion over this interpretation is that I thought in FED that quality of throw is not a factor when determining RLI.  I also note that in the 2017 Rule Book, there is no exception listed to 8-4-1g.  I think this ruling should correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this ruling conforms with the rule as written.

Remember that RLI has 3 necessary elements, without any one of which we properly no-call:

  1. Runner out of the lane by rule
  2. A throw to a fielder at 1B (not necessarily quality)
  3. Hindrance of the fielder taking the throw by the BR due to his illegal position

The interp is based on the fact that, when the fielders play "inside" and the BR is "outside," his illegal position did not hinder the fielder taking the throw.

If you want to read the case play as sneaking in the quality concept, that's probably not far off base. But it is firmly grounded in the baseball fundamental that no hindrance = no INT.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Maven.  I got a little "tunnel vision" and didn't expand my thinking to the hindrance part of the equation.  This is another case where I wish FED would clean up the rule and conform with OBR (and college) and just get rid of the "thrown" and "throw" words.  Deleting those two words would fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I would add that something that could be easily overlooked if not "marked clearly" the runner cannot run in the lane, until they REACH the lane (45' away).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a related case play from the 2004 revisions:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Maven.  I got a little "tunnel vision" and didn't expand my thinking to the hindrance part of the equation.  This is another case where I wish FED would clean up the rule and conform with OBR (and college) and just get rid of the "thrown" and "throw" words.  Deleting those two words would fix it.


NCAA and Fed are actually the same. Both consider it to be interference if either the throw, or the fielder receiving the throw are hindered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the OP, isn't this poorly worded to simply state, " ... B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back ... "

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

After all, the running lane IS in foul territory except for the foul line itself. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

 

 

More cans of sprayable chalk may be in order.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MadMax said:

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

 

 

More cans of sprayable chalk may be in order.

What's your beef with FED, other than most of our common quibbles? You never responded in another thread about a common mechanics issue that was common to all codes? I've encountered many non FED fields without the lane, none at levels above FED and very few at FED levels in my area? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MadMax said:

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

Whether it's marked or not, it still exists -- and if the case play in question doesn't mention the runner being out of the lane, I agree that it would be more clear if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/11/2017 at 5:45 PM, VolUmp said:

Going back to the OP, isn't this poorly worded to simply state, " ... B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back ... "

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

After all, the running lane IS in foul territory except for the foul line itself. 

I'd agree 100% if it were a test question as opposed to a case play. Don't read the situation as a "question" and the ruling as the "answer". Read the whole thing as one. Play says "running in foul territory", Ruling  clarifies BR was not in the runner's lane.

Then again, States like mine are known to pull test questions straight from case plays, and this would sure be a poor question as written.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By sd181612
      I hope everyone had an awesome new year! As you may know, it is getting to that point in the school year where scholarships are being looked up. I was wondering if any of you knew if there is such thing as an umpiring scholarship or award available. I am sure my fellow young umpires, as well as myself, will appreciate it any information.
       
    • By Thawk751
      Man I love having this option that NFHS gave us with for warning the coaches.  The restriction adds a little more bite to a warning.
      So let me set it up for you; MS game, Bottom 6th, 2-2 game, 0 outs, Runners on 1st & 3rd.  BR goes for the bunt and misses.  R1 takes of on the pitch stealing 2B.  F2 attempts to throw out R1 and in the process runs into BR.  BR never left the batters box, never made any movement after the bunt.  So I make the call "I've got nothing here".  Next pitch, BR attempts to bunt again.  This time after he attempts and misses, his momentum carried his front foot out in front of the plate.  F2 goes for the backside pickoff of now R2 and again makes contact with BR.  Now I've got interference, and call BR out.  OC comes down from 3B box to argue the call.  He swears to me that his batter was stepping out the BACK of the box, and that F2 induced the contact.  I calmly tell him that the BR stepped out of the front of the box and that is why I called interference.  Coach doesn't like it, gets closer to my face, clearly attempting to intimidate me.  I simply say "Coach, we're done.  It's my call."  He turns around to go back to 3B box, not happy but quietly.  I'm all ready to put the ball back in play when I hear from the 1B box "LEARN THE DARN (Yes, darn was the word used) RULES!!"  Turned right over to the coach, and said "Coach I'm giving you a warning; you're restricted to the dugout for the rest of the game."  If that rule hadn't been in place, I probably would have ended up ejecting him.
      Why that coach had to chime in, I'll never know.  Next batter brought in the go-ahead run, and the Home Team won 3-2.
    • By jpperez14
      Had the ball went off BR shoulder/back, gone left or right to F3, or overthrown F3, would anyone else get RLI here. 
       
      I know the throw retired the runner, but had it not.
      Your browser does not support iframes.
       
    • By Thunderheads
      ............ 28 high school games for 2016 already from Arbiter, .... 25 of them Varsity .....
    • By Thunderheads
      is this play EVER NOT argued???
      Your browser does not support iframes.