Running Lane Violation?

[Pops]

Fed Rules

I need a clarification on this one. The running lane rule from the Fed Case Book 8.4.1.G talks about throws to 1B.

But what about this situation: R1 on 3B, no outs, grounder to F3 near the line in back of 1B. F3 throws to F2, but the BR is outside the running lane and throw is wild because F3 didn’t want to hit BR. Is this a running lane violation or interference or neither?

[Rich Ives]

Fed Rules

I need a clarification on this one. The running lane rule from the Fed Case Book 8.4.1.G talks about throws to 1B.

But what about this situation: R1 on 3B, no outs, grounder to F3 near the line in back of 1B. F3 throws to F2, but the BR is outside the running lane and throw is wild because F3 didn’t want to hit BR. Is this a running lane violation or interference or neither?

The rule 8-4-1-g says it is a violation if the runner is outside the lane "while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base."

This isn't happening in your play so there's no violation

8-4-2-g says the runner is out if he "intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrwn ball".

This didn't happen here so there's no interference.

[mstaylor]

What Rich said. :)

[Richvee]

Just to clarify, In a situation where the ball is hit up the 1st base line, F1 or F2 fields it near the line, BR is running outside the running lane in fair territory. The fielder doesn't attempt a throw, there can be no violation. There has to be a throw to call a running lane violation, correct?

[johnnyg08]

has to be a throw, correct.

[midmoump]

Book sayeth, "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." Rule 6.05(k) No throw, no interference.

Pete

[Haid D' Salaami]

wow.. 1st off we can't have a R1 on 3rd base...LOL

and in this play this is just a bad throw by F3..unless BR does something intenional.

[Richvee]

OP says FED. so yes, R1 can be at 3rd . gotta love FED :wacko:

[catsbackr]

I would look for intent on the part of the BR. You won't have a running lane violation, but could have interference.

If BR knows the throw is going home and runs 6 feet into fair territory and the 1B throws or moves to avoid the BR's path to throw, you very well could have interference.

It reminds me of R1 going on the pitch, batter swings and missed and falls over the plate. Would batter have fallen over the plate if the runner wasn't going? In the OP, would the BR be where he was if the runner wasn't coming from 3B?

Sometimes you just have to umpire.

[johnnyg08]

Here's where FED rules once again, remove all opportunity for umpire judgment.

Under FED rules, a quality throw is not required to call runner lane interference.

Under NCAA/OBR, a quality throw is required.

Also, depending on where the runner is running in relation to the origin of the throw can determine Runner Lane Interference. For example, a batter runner could be running to the outside of the runners lane and also be guilty of interference.

[Rich Ives]

I would look for intent on the part of the BR. You won't have a running lane violation, but could have interference.

If BR knows the throw is going home and runs 6 feet into fair territory and the 1B throws or moves to avoid the BR's path to throw, you very well could have interference.

It reminds me of R1 going on the pitch, batter swings and missed and falls over the plate. Would batter have fallen over the plate if the runner wasn't going? In the OP, would the BR be where he was if the runner wasn't coming from 3B?

Sometimes you just have to umpire.

Don't make things up just because you think is shouldn't be legal/allowed.

Sometimes you have to expect the fielder to adjust. The catcher has to adjust to the batter if the batter's in the box motionless for example.

There is NO requirement on where the runner runs. It is only int if he's out of the lane and the play is going TO 1B.

[johnnyg08]

If he was in the lane up to the base, he can leave the lane his last two steps to touch the base and not be guilty of INT. If he was out the whole way or a lot of the way, the batter/runner is not protected

[Rich Ives]

If he was in the lane up to the base, he can leave the lane his last two steps to touch the base and not be guilty of INT. If he was out the whole way or a lot of the way, the batter/runner is not protected

He's not protected on a throw TO 1B. After that intent is required.

[mstaylor]

If he was in the lane up to the base, he can leave the lane his last two steps to touch the base and not be guilty of INT. If he was out the whole way or a lot of the way, the batter/runner is not protected

You are looking at it backwards. If the play is going to first then certainly the running lane is valid. If the play is coming back to the plate then the running lane is invalid. At that point it really doesn't matter what line the BR takes, what you need to watch for is intentional actions to alter the play coming home. You are correct on offensive indifference being grounds for intention in BI situations. On plays like this, that would be a tough sell.

[johnnyg08]

I know what I meant to write, but it didn't come out that way. I might have missed part of the discussion on a throw back home. I was referring only on a play on the BR at 1b. "Protecting" the batter/runner was a poor word choice.

[mstaylor]

No, what you wrote was fine with it going to first, backwards for coming back home. It's all good.

[catsbackr]

What did I make up, Rich?

I wanted to add more but I remember the topic about being civil on this site.

[Rich Ives]

What did I make up, Rich?

.

You're wanting to apply the running lane rule to a play in which it doesn't apply, and failing that inventing interference so you can have a reason the call the BR out.

[catsbackr]

Whatever Rich.

This is what I said

I would look for intent on the part of the BR. You won't have a running lane violation, but could have interference.

If BR knows the throw is going home and runs 6 feet into fair territory and the 1B throws or moves to avoid the BR's path to throw, you very well could have interference

I didn't say anything about applying a running lane violation.

Read the highlighted words. GEEZ! (READ being the key word).

[Mr Umpire]

Whatever Rich.

This is what I said

I would look for intent on the part of the BR. You won't have a running lane violation, but could have interference.

If BR knows the throw is going home and runs 6 feet into fair territory and the 1B throws or moves to avoid the BR's path to throw, you very well could have interference

I didn't say anything about applying a running lane violation.

Read the highlighted words. GEEZ! (READ being the key word).

Only if the INT is intentional. If the BR doesn't intentionally interfere with the throw back home, then there is NO INT. None whatsoever without intent. That is what Rich is getting at. You have no rule support just b/c BR is out of the lane when the play is going back to HP. So, you very well could not have INT without intent.

[mstaylor]

You both are saying the same thing. Rich is saying interference must be intentional. catsbackr is saying that being way out of the line could put him in a place to create an interference. What needs to be qualified between the two is by being way inside, that in itself won't be interference. Offensive indifference isn't really a possiblilty here either. This last sentence is the only arguable part of the equation.

[alex7]

ehh. It's baaaaaarely worth talking about anymore. But Rich is right. It doens't matter if he's 6 feet inside, 6 feet outside, or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference. It makes no difference where he's at, intent is all that matters.

[yawetag]

or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference.

Elaborate, please. AFAIK, being on the line is being in the lane.

[johnnyg08]

COULD theoretically

Don't think so.

[sdix00]

ehh. It's baaaaaarely worth talking about anymore. But Rich is right. It doens't matter if he's 6 feet inside, 6 feet outside, or running perfectly down the line. ANY of those positions COULD theoretically put him in a place to create interference. It makes no difference where he's at, intent is all that matters.

As Yawtag requested, please elaborate.

I am probably visualizing something else, but I do not agree with the quoted passage.