New state rule for RLI

[maven]

Apparently, our state interpreter aims to create not just his own mechanics manual, but also his own rule book. This just arrived in the ole email bag:

Quote

[The state interpreter] has put a premium on Runners-lane interference this year. He wants it called, with runners on base, regardless of the quality of the throw, because he wants the runners who are on base to return to their base as penalty for the runner being out of the running lane.

He has also said that he wants both feet out of the lane, not just one, to make this call.

That being said, he was very clear, if a runner is beyond 45 feet, completely out of the lane, and the catcher makes a throw, even if it gets the runner out by 25 feet, we are to call interference and return any runners who advanced on the play.

For umpires who work in states other than Ohio, please note:

1. There is no penalty for "being out of the running lane." Neither the definition of nor the penalty for RLI changes with runners on.
2. A runner is out of the running lane if ONE (or both) feet are out of the lane. The rule does not require both feet out of the lane (regardless of other runners).
3. Again, the suggestion that being out of the lane is illegal is incorrect. There IS a penalty for interference, which by rule involves hindrance. No hindrance = no INT.

[VolUmp]

23 minutes ago, maven said:

A runner is out of the running lane if ONE (or both) feet are out of the lane. The rule does not require both feet out of the lane (regardless of other runners).

Is this spelled out in the NFHS books?

I attended a college camp and we were specifically shown that if the right foot of the runner is even touching the foul line, with his left foot 2-3 feet out of the lane (in fair territory), he’s good.  I couldn’t ask the question, “Is that different in FED?”

[VolUmp]

27 minutes ago, maven said:

if a runner is beyond 45 feet

Maven,

In FED, (or perhaps it’s consistent in all rule sets), is the only way to get RLI before the 45’ mark when it is deemed intentional that the B/R is blocking a throw?

And if that is true, is it even called RLI, or simply INT???

[scrounge]

Sounds like this is coming to you 2nd hand, I'd wait to see what DM actually said. Not that I don't believe you in any way or whomever relayed this to you, just that things sometimes get amplified in translation. Because if as you heard? That's a little disturbing. I'm not calling interference if they easily get the runner - as you said, there's no hindrance, and the rule explicitly says to ignore it if it doesn't interfere with a fielder or throw.

@VolUmp: 8-4-1

g. he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or

1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

2. The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

[Cav]

50 minutes ago, maven said:

Apparently, our state interpreter aims to create not just his own mechanics manual, but also his own rule book. This just arrived in the ole email bag:

For umpires who work in states other than Ohio, please note:

1. There is no penalty for "being out of the running lane." Neither the definition of nor the penalty for RLI changes with runners on.
2. A runner is out of the running lane if ONE (or both) feet are out of the lane. The rule does not require both feet out of the lane (regardless of other runners).
3. Again, the suggestion that being out of the lane is illegal is incorrect. There IS a penalty for interference, which by rule involves hindrance. No hindrance = no INT.

From whom, when, where and why did this come?  I see no 2018 bulletins from DOD Baseball.  

[White47]

52 minutes ago, maven said:

53 minutes ago, maven said:

he wants the runners who are on base to return to their base as penalty for the runner being out of the running lane.

 

Maybe I'm just not understand what your say here, but isn't the rule that if RLI is called runners return to TOP?

[noumpere]

28 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Maven,

In FED, (or perhaps it’s consistent in all rule sets), is the only way to get RLI before the 45’ mark when it is deemed intentional that the B/R is blocking a throw?

And if that is true, is it even called RLI, or simply INT???

Well, since the running lane doesn't start until the 45' mark, it can't be RLI if the runner hasn't gone that far.

3 minutes ago, White47 said:

Maybe I'm just not understand what your say here, but isn't the rule that if RLI is called runners return to TOP?

The interpreter's (incorrect) point is that if the runner is out of the lane, but RLI is not called, then the offense gets to keep the advance base.  The interpreter doesn't want that -- he wants the runners to return even if there's no INT (that is, he wants the RLI call so that the runners will return)

[White47]

17 minutes ago, noumpere said:

The interpreter's (incorrect) point is that if the runner is out of the lane, but RLI is not called, then the offense gets to keep the advance base.  The interpreter doesn't want that -- he wants the runners to return even if there's no INT (that is, he wants the RLI call so that the runners will return)

So he is wanting RLI called even if it doesn't hinder anything??? That's Bad...

[VolUmp]

Just found It in the 2018 NFHS Rules Book:

8-4-1 g. 2. 

The batter-runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

[maven]

Well, two hours later and my source is walking this back a bit. If I can get an email answer, I'll let y'all know.

[maven]

OK, my apologies to everyone who wasted time reading this thread.

Short version: the state interpreter is not making shît up. He basically wants RLI as a state POE.

Longer version: my source is a fellow local interpreter, and I took his report to be second hand from the state interpreter. That's not what happened: he was relaying a third-hand report from a non-interpreter (and indeed a super guy but he can barely read). So I mistakenly invested too much credence in his report. My bad for posting here before following up a little.

Again, apologies.

[Cav]

 

Done.

[grayhawk]

I know this was fake news, but I feel compelling to bring up one point.  In Fed, RLI results in runners returning to their last touched base at TOI, not TOP.  It's TOP in NCAA and OBR (unless there was an intervening play).

[maven]

18 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I know this was fake news, but I feel compelling to bring up one point.  In Fed, RLI results in runners returning to their last touched base at TOI, not TOP.  It's TOP in NCAA and OBR (unless there was an intervening play).

Are you seeking help for this compulsion of yours?

New forum idea: umpire counseling.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Are you seeking help for this compulsion of yours?

New forum idea: umpire counseling.

It would be a busy one.  You have to be at least a little screwed up to be an umpire.

[Mudisfun]

19 hours ago, grayhawk said:

It would be a busy one.  You have to be at least a little screwed up to be an umpire.

Only a little?