Runner's Lane Interference

[GreyhoundAggie]

Wanted to poll you guys on how you enforce this rule.

 

I understand the rule fine and the penalties associated, I'm more curious about do you always enforce it.

 

I had probably 3 situations where I could have called runner's lane interference last night, but the defense got the out so I didn't.

 

Do you always call the interference if you see it? Or only when runner's are on to prevent them from benefiting from the interference?

 

If no one is on and they get the out, it doesn't matter so much. But I guess if you always call it no matter what, the player's will get the hint and you will be consistent.

 

2 games last night. Had the dish on the varsity. Called a great game I thought. I wanted maybe 2 pitches back. And I got a batter's interference. I called the runner out at first , but my partner corrected me and we got it fixed.

 

2 more games tonight. Got the dish for varsity again.

[LMSANS]

What did they interfere with if the out was made? Larry Sansevere Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

Notice it, don't call it unless you have to. (same in all codes)

 

It's an automatic dead ball and in FED & you don't even have to judge a quality throw.  

 

If they get the out, you can conclude that it wasn't interference. 

 

Good question.  

[Jocko]

NFHS 8-4-1-g-1&2 "(g) He runs outside the 3' running lane (last half of the distance from home to 1B), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to 1B; or (1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball or if the act doesn't INT with a fielder or throw. (2) The BR is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."

If defense successfully retires the BR, there should be no INT call. UNLESS, there was a possibility of a DP and his infraction does in-fact INT with the DP, even though he is retired. Not sure I can wrap my head around that scenario, but it exists because "Any runner" includes the BR.

8-4-1-h "any runner or retired runner interferes in a way which OBVIOUSLY (my emphasis) hinders an OBVIOUS (again, my emphasis) DP."

[GreyhoundAggie]

Thanks guys. That's what I was looking for.

 

I pretty much was already calling it that way. Ignore it unless it was obvious, or the defense didn't get the out.

 

Had my partner in the JV game pull out the dreaded  "The runner must slide on a FPSR" quote.

 

So much potential for a coach to jump on that.

[johnnyg08]

Thanks guys. That's what I was looking for.

 

I pretty much was already calling it that way. Ignore it unless it was obvious, or the defense didn't get the out.

 

Had my partner in the JV game pull out the dreaded  "The runner must slide on a FPSR" quote.

 

So much potential for a coach to jump on that.

 

 

If they get the out, you don't call it though. The "ignore it unless it was obvious" piece isn't necessarily correct based on how I'm reading it.

[Jocko]

Thanks guys. That's what I was looking for. I pretty much was already calling it that way. Ignore it unless it was obvious, or the defense didn't get the out. Had my partner in the JV game pull out the dreaded  "The runner must slide on a FPSR" quote. So much potential for a coach to jump on that.

  If they get the out, you don't call it though. The "ignore it unless it was obvious" piece isn't necessarily correct based on how I'm reading it.that part is a side note about DPs only.

[UmpJM]

You make the call (or decide it wasn't interference) when it happens. You don't know whether they're going to get the out at that point in time.

JM

[Jocko]

You make the call (or decide it wasn't interference) when it happens. You don't know whether they're going to get the out at that point in time.JM

agreed. DDB pending outcome

[UmpJM]

Jocko,

If I'm the umpire, it's an immediate dead ball.

Why would you let other runners advance just because the defense was able to retire the BR despite the interference?

JM

[GreyhoundAggie]

You bring up a good point JM.

 

You are penalizing the offense for stupidity. It's this exact reason I first posted this topic.

 

I figured I would get a mix of responses.

 

Call it when you see it, or call it if the play isn't made.

 

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards calling it every time. See interference, call interference. Otherwise they will never learn to run in the Running Lane.

[johnnyg08]

You bring up a good point JM.

 

You are penalizing the offense for stupidity. It's this exact reason I first posted this topic.

 

I figured I would get a mix of responses.

 

Call it when you see it, or call it if the play isn't made.

 

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards calling it every time. See interference, call interference. Otherwise they will never learn to run in the Running Lane.

 

 

There you go.  See it, call it.

[Jocko]

Jocko,If I'm the umpire, it's an immediate dead ball.Why would you let other runners advance just because the defense was able to retire the BR despite the interference?JM

Just stupid, I guess. :notworthy:

[noumpere]

You bring up a good point JM.

 

You are penalizing the offense for stupidity. It's this exact reason I first posted this topic.

 

I figured I would get a mix of responses.

 

Call it when you see it, or call it if the play isn't made.

 

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards calling it every time. See interference, call interference. Otherwise they will never learn to run in the Running Lane.

See interference, call interference, but by the time you see it either the runner has been hit with the throw, or the fielder has missed the ball.  If the fielder catches the ball its very unlikely that there was interference even in FED.  So saying you had it three times in one game and each time the batter was out anyway surprises me.  I can see a batter being outside the lane three times but I dont think I've ever seen interference three times in one game.

[Jocko]

I was thinking more along the lines of giving the defense the opportunity for outs after the violation. I hate to kill it with possible outs left on the table.

[GreyhoundAggie]

You bring up a good point JM.

 

You are penalizing the offense for stupidity. It's this exact reason I first posted this topic.

 

I figured I would get a mix of responses.

 

Call it when you see it, or call it if the play isn't made.

 

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards calling it every time. See interference, call interference. Otherwise they will never learn to run in the Running Lane.

See interference, call interference, but by the time you see it either the runner has been hit with the throw, or the fielder has missed the ball.  If the fielder catches the ball its very unlikely that there was interference even in FED.  So saying you had it three times in one game and each time the batter was out anyway surprises me.  I can see a batter being outside the lane three times but I dont think I've ever seen interference three times in one game.

 

Noumpere,

 

I was pointing out it could have been interference if the play wasn't made the three times. All three times the B/R was running both feet in fair territory the whole way. Didn't mean to imply it was interference every time.

[Jimurray]

You bring up a good point JM.

 

You are penalizing the offense for stupidity. It's this exact reason I first posted this topic.

 

I figured I would get a mix of responses.

 

Call it when you see it, or call it if the play isn't made.

 

I can see both sides, but I am leaning towards calling it every time. See interference, call interference. Otherwise they will never learn to run in the Running Lane.

See interference, call interference, but by the time you see it either the runner has been hit with the throw, or the fielder has missed the ball.  If the fielder catches the ball its very unlikely that there was interference even in FED.  So saying you had it three times in one game and each time the batter was out anyway surprises me.  I can see a batter being outside the lane three times but I dont think I've ever seen interference three times in one game.  

Noumpere,

 

I was pointing out it could have been interference if the play wasn't made the three times. All three times the B/R was running both feet in fair territory the whole way. Didn't mean to imply it was interference every time.

They run out of the lane all the time. They are trained to go the quickest way to 1B. Check MLB. You don't call anything unless they interfere. Most of the time the catcher will throw inside or outside and get the out. If the runner is hit by the ball or interferes with the catch or in FED affects the throw call the INT.

[alex7]

My .02   At a HS varsity level, if you actually kill the play to call INT on the RLV every time you see it, even if the D was able to get the out, you're going to be thought of as a "by the book" umpire that isn't using the most common sense available.  

 

The coach will want to know what the runner interfered with, and even the D will find it odd that you stopped the game unless the runner was so far inside that the catcher had to alter his throw and everyone noticed it.

 

Otherwise, if it's small (foot just outside the line, or outside the lines just past the 45' line but angling out towards the lane), just let it go unless it hinders something.

[Jimurray]

My .02   At a HS varsity level, if you actually kill the play to call INT on the RLV every time you see it, even if the D was able to get the out, you're going to be thought of as a "by the book" umpire that isn't using the most common sense available.  

 

The coach will want to know what the runner interfered with, and even the D will find it odd that you stopped the game unless the runner was so far inside that the catcher had to alter his throw and everyone noticed it.

 

Otherwise, if it's small (foot just outside the line, or outside the lines just past the 45' line but angling out towards the lane), just let it go unless it hinders something.

A RLV is not INT if the (rule book quote) act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. Are we now pointing at a runner outside the lane?

[spiritump]

Jocko,

If I'm the umpire, it's an immediate dead ball.

Why would you let other runners advance just because the defense was able to retire the BR despite the interference?

JM

 

as you talking RLV or on the bases ??

[maineump]

A question came up last night and caused great discussion -

Do you still have RLV if the throw is coming from the SS and pulls 1B towards the base path into a runner outside the lane? The rule says it does.

NFHS 8-4-1-g-1&2 "(g) He runs outside the 3' running lane (last half of the distance from home to 1B), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to 1B; or (1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball or if the act doesn't INT with a fielder or throw. (2) The BR is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."

Or - is the RLV only for a play coming from the plate area?

[maven]

A question came up last night and caused great discussion -

Do you still have RLV if the throw is coming from the SS and pulls 1B towards the base path into a runner outside the lane? The rule says it does.

NFHS 8-4-1-g-1&2 "(g) He runs outside the 3' running lane (last half of the distance from home to 1B), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to 1B; or (1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball or if the act doesn't INT with a fielder or throw. (2) The BR is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."

Or - is the RLV only for a play coming from the plate area?

 

No, and OBS is more likely in the play you're describing. 8.3.2k

[maineump]

 

A question came up last night and caused great discussion -

Do you still have RLV if the throw is coming from the SS and pulls 1B towards the base path into a runner outside the lane? The rule says it does.

NFHS 8-4-1-g-1&2 "(g) He runs outside the 3' running lane (last half of the distance from home to 1B), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to 1B; or (1) This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball or if the act doesn't INT with a fielder or throw. (2) The BR is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line."

Or - is the RLV only for a play coming from the plate area?

 

No, and OBS is more likely in the play you're describing. 8.3.2k

 

That was my thought - I said OBS would be my call - should have seen the reaction

- because the rule says - must be in the lane.

[maven]

That was my thought - I said OBS would be my call - should have seen the reaction

- because the rule says - must be in the lane.

That's only a very small part of what the rule says, and not at all what it means.

[maineump]

 

That was my thought - I said OBS would be my call - should have seen the reaction

- because the rule says - must be in the lane.

That's only a very small part of what the rule says, and not at all what it means.

 

We have too many guys that take the book word-for-word and don't think about any intent of the rule.

When I was asked about my reasoning for OBS, I told him my thoughts - I then tried to explain intent of the runners lane, and got a  look from him. He also told me that if 1B  gets spiked, it had to be because the BR ran out of the lane.

My question to him - How is the runner suppose to run through the bag without at least having 1 foot out of the lane?

 

Has anyone got a REAL SIMPLE way to explain runners lane, that has worked for them?

My thought is don't go looking for trouble, because it can find you with or without your help. Keep things simple!!