INT and the 3' running lane

[BrianC14]

This is a discussion being held (raged?)over at the ABUA site, and I thought it would help anyone that doesn't visit there.

Bear in mind that this interpretation applies to NFHS or "FED" games only.

The FED interpretation is that the quality of the throw is not to be considered when a runner it outside the 3' running lane.

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3828 2/25/2010

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 ( 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 (, 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)

Edited March 16, 2010 by BrianC14

[Umpire in Chief]

I have a bit of an issue with the ruling in A. Quality of the throw has to come into play at some point. If F2 sails it 30' over F3's head and into deep right field, there is no way I'm awarding interference. I know my example sounds ridiculous, but if quality of the throw doesn't matter then this could be the case. IMO I think if it is anywhere near a decent throw I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the defense because it's the BR who is screwing up.

In B. I have no problem other than the fact that if quality of the throw were not an issue then he shouldn't be required to throw at all.

[BrianC14]

I have a bit of an issue with the ruling in A. Quality of the throw has to come into play at some point. If F2 sails it 30' over F3's head and into deep right field, there is no way I'm awarding interference. I know my example sounds ridiculous, but if quality of the throw doesn't matter then this could be the case. IMO I think if it is anywhere near a decent throw I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the defense because it's the BR who is screwing up.

In B. I have no problem other than the fact that if quality of the throw were not an issue then he shouldn't be required to throw at all.

Agreed, Warren - I think the interpretation emits a rather foul odor. :wow:

[LMSANS]

I have a bit of an issue with the ruling in A. Quality of the throw has to come into play at some point. If F2 sails it 30' over F3's head and into deep right field, there is no way I'm awarding interference. I know my example sounds ridiculous, but if quality of the throw doesn't matter then this could be the case. IMO I think if it is anywhere near a decent throw I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the defense because it's the BR who is screwing up.

In B. I have no problem other than the fact that if quality of the throw were not an issue then he shouldn't be required to throw at all.

I don't disagree. I do have a problem with what is the apprpriate height to use 3' or 6' or 9', maybe a little off center. Yeah 30' is easy, but where do you draw the line.

Or as someone brought up, what if F2 bounces the throw up the line?

I think as Brian (the Ultimate fan of NFHS rules) has said, "sometimes you have to umpire." If it's a reasonable throw, I got INT. What's reasonable? That's my judgement. But I will be leaning towards the rulebook.

Edited March 17, 2010 by LMSANS
Thank you Sister Mary Robert for teaching me punctuation.

[Umpire in Chief]

Good question Larry...

I'm going to be very generous to the defense.

I cant say at 8' off I'm getting it but at 9' off I'm not.

[tjthresh]

The Fed interpretation states exactly how the Fed wants it called. I've read and been told many times that game officials do not get to ignore a rule because they think it smells funny. Why is this one different?

[BrianC14]

I don't disagree. I do have a problem with what is the apprpriate height to use 3' or 6' or 9', maybe a little off center. Yeah 30' is easy, but where do you draw the line.

Or as someone brought up, what if F2 bounces the throw up the line?

I think as Brian (the Ultimate fan of NFHS rules) has said, "sometimes you have to umpire." If it's a reasonable throw, I got INT. What's reasonable? That's my judgement. But I will be leaning towards the rulebook.

That's the thing about FED's interpretation, Larry - - we don't get to use our judgment on the quality of the throw. So based on FED's interpretation, the throw COULD BE 30' up - you're "required" to call INT based on FED's interpretation of this.

[BrianC14]

The Fed interpretation states exactly how the Fed wants it called. I've read and been told many times that game officials do not get to ignore a rule because they think it smells funny. Why is this one different?

It isn't. Based on the FED interpretation, we're not supposed to consider the quality of the throw. That's why I don't like FED's interpretation of this.

[tjthresh]

It isn't. Based on the FED interpretation, we're not supposed to consider the quality of the throw. That's why I don't like FED's interpretation of this.

So even if its a poor quality throw, if the runner is out of the lane, you call it, right?

[mstaylor]

Remember in OBR you are ruling on the runner interfering with the F3's ability to catch the throw so the throw must be a quality throw. In Fed you are ruling on the runner interfering with the catcher's ability to throw the ball so the quality doesn't need be considered. Thhe theory being that the runner being there may have caused the catcher to make a bad throw.

[BrianC14]

So even if its a poor quality throw, if the runner is out of the lane, you call it, right?

That's what the FED interp. says... :shrug:

[Umpire in Chief]

That's what the FED interp. says...

Then they shouldn't require a throw and have it an immediate dead ball when f2 fields a ball behind the BR who is inside the lane.

Something which should be suggested for a future change...

[BrianC14]

Then they shouldn't require a throw and have it an immediate dead ball when f2 fields a ball behind the BR who is inside the lane.

Something which should be suggested for a future change...

There's the flaw in their logic on this.... no throw = no INT.

So the logic they use is that the bad throw could have been caused by the fact that the B/R was out of the lane.... but it seems to me that a fielder could also decide not to throw for the same reason. Now the latter is a pretty silly argument, and so FED says no throw = no INT. But it's equally logical to say that a poor throw is also not grounds for INT. But that just me, being logical, but FED says a poor throw = INT anyway. :shrug:

[mstaylor]

Brian is exactly right, whether it makes sense or not that is the way Fed wrote the rule.

[mazzamouth]

FED rules are dumb..... In a I have no INT..so a high school coach can kiss my mask...LOL

[Thunderheads]

Well, it's a double edged sword in a way ....dumb interpretation, but ...it kind of makes it easier on us because the throw doesn't matter, ...plain and simple

[tjthresh]

Here's something that has crossed my mind...

Say you got R2 or R2/R3

F2 fields a ball and throws a strike to F3, but BR is still out of the 3' ft running lane. BR is out because of the throw, not the interference. Do you still call INF, which would keep any runners from advancing, or would this be over umpiring?

[DirtyDawg]

I would say OBR - No and Fed - Quite possibly

[Umpire in Chief]

he only must be in the lane for the final 45'

[BrianC14]

Here's something that has crossed my mind...

Say you got R2 or R2/R3

F2 fields a ball and throws a strike to F3, but BR is still out of the 3' ft running lane. BR is out because of the throw, not the interference. Do you still call INF, which would keep any runners from advancing, or would this be over umpiring?

Well yes, in addition to 'over-umpiring' (see also: Making Up Your Own Rules) it would be just plain wrong.

You might want to review what constitutes interference by the batter/runner. What you've described isn't one of them.

[tjthresh]

Well yes, in addition to 'over-umpiring' (see also: Making Up Your Own Rules) it would be just plain wrong.

You might want to review what constitutes interference by the batter/runner. What you've described isn't one of them.

Listen I get what your saying...but what happending to "they rules don't say anything about the quality of the throw"?

Not saying I'd call it.

Just . Relax.

[noumpere]

Well yes, in addition to 'over-umpiring' (see also: Making Up Your Own Rules) it would be just plain wrong.

You might want to review what constitutes interference by the batter/runner. What you've described isn't one of them.

Agree 100%.

[dleavitt39]

I kind of understand where TJ is coming from...if the quality of the throw doesn't matter, then shouldn't it become interference as soon as the ball is thrown? You have all components, throw to F3, BR is out of the lane, the fielder executes the throw , and it COULD cause the throw to go wild, but that doesn't matter, as quality of the throw doesn't matter, so wouldn't it be INT immediately after the fielder releases the ball? and INT is NOT a DBB in fed, correct? Therefore, you call TIME as soon as the throw is made, call INT, BR out, all runners back to where they started.

Not saying I agree with this rule, I think it(the whole damn book) is worded like just

DL