Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

Runner Lane Interference on a Retired Batter Runner

Recommended Posts

I was reading through the BRD (2016) and saw what was (at least to me) something that caught me be surprise. One other citation is from the NCAA Rule Book

Is the idea that the retired batter/runner is knowingly running outside of the runner's lane considered an act of "Intentional Interference"? 

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?  

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.45.45 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.12.29 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.50.02 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 9.27.46 AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

What part are you confused on? I see nothing there out of the ordinary. In both, running in the lane is legal; outside the lane is illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really confused as much as surprised that there is a requirement for a retired batter-runner and no other runners who can continue to run the bases. That's all. 

I get it. It's easy enough to enforce, just surprised that the runner's lane applies to a retired batter-runner and being out of the runner's lane is defined as an intentional act. 

If that's the case, it makes perfect sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I tried to find the interpretation in the WRIM that he referenced and I didn't have any luck finding anything close to that interpretation. 

There are lots of opportunities for inferences, but that's where it begins and ends.

Does Jaska/Roder offer an opinion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Not really confused as much as surprised that there is a requirement for a retired batter-runner and no other runners who can continue to run the bases. That's all. 

I get it. It's easy enough to enforce, just surprised that the runner's lane applies to a retired batter-runner and being out of the runner's lane is defined as an intentional act. 

If that's the case, it makes perfect sense. 

I suppose it would fall outside of "running the bases normally".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual has the same play (just worded slightly differently) as the 2016 BRD play 161-296. It’s listed as Example 3 on page 112—

R1, stealing. Batter bunts the pitch into the air and is running to first outside the running lane. The catcher catches the ball for the batter-runner’s out and attempts to throw to first for an appeal of R1’s failure to retouch. The throw hits the batter-runner (still outside the lane) square in the back and R1 slides into first safely:  interference. The batter-runner is already out, so the runner being played against, R1, is also out.

And for what it’s worth (no, not a Buffalo Springfield song reference), I agree with the BRD, Wendelstedt, Rumble (FED), and NCAA interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. noumpere, always glad to help. The same play can be found verbatim in the 2010 Jaksa/Roder manual in chapter 13 (Offensive Interference), section III-B on page 107.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, am I correct in recalling a ruling in one or all of the codes that if F3 puts the batter out on a grounder to 1B and throws home, hitting the B-R it doesn't matter if the batter was not in the lane and no INT unless intentional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  Not in my version (which would be on page 61 or so) -- this section only has two examples.

JEA has no such examples (already retired BR being hit while outside the runner's lane),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimurray said:

Strange, am I correct in recalling a ruling in one or all of the codes that if F3 puts the batter out on a grounder to 1B and throws home, hitting the B-R it doesn't matter if the batter was not in the lane and no INT unless intentional?

That's correct -- and it's in my (old) versions of JEA and J/R and in the FED case book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Strange, am I correct in recalling a ruling in one or all of the codes that if F3 puts the batter out on a grounder to 1B and throws home, hitting the B-R it doesn't matter if the batter was not in the lane and no INT unless intentional?

Yes. Agree. 

This is turning into a good discussion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jimurray, here’s the FED case book play that Mr. noumpere mentioned--

2018 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.1 Situation C:  With R3 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R3. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path, the same as if he were advancing toward any other base. Since no play is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply. Had B2 intentionally made contact with the throw, the ball would be dead. B2 would be out and the umpire could call R3 out for B2’s interference. Otherwise, R3 returns to third base on the interference call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 12:59 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, here’s the FED case book play that Mr. noumpere mentioned--

2018 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.1 Situation C:  With R3 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R3. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path, the same as if he were advancing toward any other base. Since no play is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply. Had B2 intentionally made contact with the throw, the ball would be dead. B2 would be out and the umpire could call R3 out for B2’s interference. Otherwise, R3 returns to third base on the interference call.

So if I'm reading this right, this it interference under the NFHS..."on the line" is considered in the runner's lane. 

Am I reading it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lines have always been considered a part of the running lane.

And, in the case play, he hasn't interfered, unless he "intentionally made contact with the throw."

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

×