Interesting Play

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

[Richvee]

 

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

 

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

 

Not sure this 8.4.1c ruling is very relevant here. No play is being made on B2 in this example because this play is talking about F3 throwing home to try to get out R3. That's why 8-4-1g does not apply here. 

[ALStripes17]

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

Not sure this 8.4.1c ruling is very relevant here. No play is being made on B2 in this example because this play is talking about F3 throwing home to try to get out R3. That's why 8-4-1g does not apply here.

The ruling stated gives a foundation for when INT can occur

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

 

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

 

Not sure this 8.4.1c ruling is very relevant here. No play is being made on B2 in this example because this play is talking about F3 throwing home to try to get out R3. That's why 8-4-1g does not apply here.

 

The ruling stated gives a foundation for when INT can occur

 

 

You can't use the house to build the foundation.

[ALStripes17]

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

Not sure this 8.4.1c ruling is very relevant here. No play is being made on B2 in this example because this play is talking about F3 throwing home to try to get out R3. That's why 8-4-1g does not apply here.

The ruling stated gives a foundation for when INT can occur

You can't use the house to build the foundation.

You're so witty Matt

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

 

Right.  My point (based on Hopkins) is that the INT is presumed once the throw is made (and the other criteria are met).  This is not inconsistent with 8.4.1.g.1.

 

How would you treat this:  R2 hit-and-run.  The batter hits a swunt out in front of the plate.  The BR is out of the lane directly between F2 and F3.  Because the BR is in his way, F2 lobs the ball over the BR's head, and F3 catches it just after the BR touches 1st base.  R2 then scores on a very close play at the plate.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you allow a BR out of the RL as long as F3 can snag the throw in any way and still get the out?

Yes, as I have said multiple times.

 

No, the extra time needed to make a play on a thrown ball like that could give other runners time to advance.

There is a runner's lane, BR should use it

Yes, he should. Doesn't make it illegal. The rule even says that it's not.

 

CB 8.4 1 C says otherwise.

RULING: ... Since no PLAY is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply...

That tells me that only a play must be made on the BR, BR is anywhere in line of a throw or play being made on him, and he is outside of the runner's lane.

 

Not sure this 8.4.1c ruling is very relevant here. No play is being made on B2 in this example because this play is talking about F3 throwing home to try to get out R3. That's why 8-4-1g does not apply here.

 

The ruling stated gives a foundation for when INT can occur

 

You can't use the house to build the foundation.

 

You're so witty Matt

 

 

It's true, though. You're looking at what happened, making the determination of INT, and trying to piece rules together to support it. The proper thing is to look at what happened, draw on the applicable rules, and reach a determination.

 

We see this often on balks--"it looks wrong, so it must be a balk."

 

I won't work that way. That's why, as much as I want to, I don't have an EJ in the FL/FL St. game on the collision.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

 

Thats not what I said. If the out is made is what I said and what Matt is saying.

 

I believe there CAN be INT and the out is still made. This is where you would return other runners.

[noumpere]

 

Right.  My point (based on Hopkins) is that the INT is presumed once the throw is made (and the other criteria are met).  This is not inconsistent with 8.4.1.g.1.

 

 

 

How would you treat this:  R2 hit-and-run.  The batter hits a swunt out in front of the plate.  The BR is out of the lane directly between F2 and F3.  Because the BR is in his way, F2 lobs the ball over the BR's head, and F3 catches it just after the BR touches 1st base.  R2 then scores on a very close play at the plate.

 

BR safe at first.  No outs. (<-- edit because I misread the play)  Score the run.

 

A2D, but we're now going around in circles.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

 

Thats not what I said. If the out is made is what I said and what Matt is saying.

 

I believe there CAN be INT and the out is still made. This is where you would return other runners.

 

For INT, .... but not under RLI

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

 

Thats not what I said. If the out is made is what I said and what Matt is saying.

 

I believe there CAN be INT and the out is still made. This is where you would return other runners.

 

For INT, .... but not under RLI

 

RLI - Runners Lane Interference

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is runner INT delayed dead?

I don't think anyone is claiming that.  We're just saying that you have to wait to see the INT before it can be INT.

 

If the BR is out of the lane and between F3 and F2, INT is presumed the moment a throw is made.  You don't have to wait 'til you see actual interference, because actual interference (according to FED) already occurred.

 

That's contrary to 8-4-1g, and the interpretation does not say that anytime a throw occurs, there is RLI.

 

The batter-runner is out when:

 

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.

 

Nowhere does it say that it is ignored if the out is made.

 

Yes, it does. See the red.

 

Thats not what I said. If the out is made is what I said and what Matt is saying.

 

I believe there CAN be INT and the out is still made. This is where you would return other runners.

 

For INT, .... but not under RLI

 

RLI - Runners Lane Interference

 

Rolando, ...no, ...this may be INT no problem, but it's not a running lane violation....

[grayhawk]

 

 

Right.  My point (based on Hopkins) is that the INT is presumed once the throw is made (and the other criteria are met).  This is not inconsistent with 8.4.1.g.1.

 

 

 

How would you treat this:  R2 hit-and-run.  The batter hits a swunt out in front of the plate.  The BR is out of the lane directly between F2 and F3.  Because the BR is in his way, F2 lobs the ball over the BR's head, and F3 catches it just after the BR touches 1st base.  R2 then scores on a very close play at the plate.

 

One out.  Score the run.

 

A2D, but we're now going around in circles.

 

 

Huh?

[noumpere]

 

 

 

Right.  My point (based on Hopkins) is that the INT is presumed once the throw is made (and the other criteria are met).  This is not inconsistent with 8.4.1.g.1.

 

 

 

How would you treat this:  R2 hit-and-run.  The batter hits a swunt out in front of the plate.  The BR is out of the lane directly between F2 and F3.  Because the BR is in his way, F2 lobs the ball over the BR's head, and F3 catches it just after the BR touches 1st base.  R2 then scores on a very close play at the plate.

 

One out.  Score the run.

 

A2D, but we're now going around in circles.

 

 

Huh?

 

Doh!  Fixed.

[UmpJM]

My, my what a wide-ranging discussion...

 

My thoughts on the play in the OP.

 

1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been successfully completed at 1B. (Under OBR or NCAA rules it would be impossible to have an RLI violation on this play.)

 

a. If the umpire had judged that the fielder did not maintain secure possession through the tag of 1B due to the collision (or, as T-Rav suggests, if the collision had occurred BEFORE the F3 had received the throw), this would be a proper RLI violation (all 3 codes), and was the reason the RLI rule was made in the first place. But that's not what the umpire(s) judged here.

 

b. It is at least POSSIBLE to judge that the F2 was hindered in his throw (FED only) because the runner was out of the lane and in his throwing lane, but the defense was able to complete the play despite the hindrance. A tough call to make when the defense makes the play, but certainly "supportable" IMO. I would have to see the play.

 

2. If it's NOT RLI, we are left with the possibility of interference by a retired runner.

 

a. Since the fielder was NOT in the act of making a play on a batted ball, we must judge the runner's action INTENTIONAL in order to call an interference violation.

 

b. By rule, the runner is allowed to "continue advancing" even though retired, so that, in and of itself, is insufficient to judge his action "intentional".

 

c. So, we have to judge whether the runner did something "out of the ordinary" to complicate the defense's play OR that he had ample opportunity to avoid the collision but chose not to.

 

d. As I am envisioning the play (which may very well be entirely different from what actually happened), I would be inclined to deem the runner's action "unintentional" since the collision occurred "on the bag" which means the runner likely did NOT do anything "out of the ordinary" nor have ample opportunity to avoid the collision once he was retired. Again, one would have to actually see the play to comment definitively.

 

e. If that's the judgment, then it's a "live ball, play the bounce" situation. BR out, R1 remains at 3B.

 

3. I got a kick out of the "emergency time" call by the partner.

 

So, that's what I've got here.

 

JM

[Dash Riprock]

 

1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been successfully completed at 1B. (Under OBR or NCAA rules it would be impossible to have an RLI violation on this play.)

 

a. If the umpire had judged that the fielder did not maintain secure possession through the tag of 1B due to the collision (or, as T-Rav suggests, if the collision had occurred BEFORE the F3 had received the throw), this would be a proper RLI violation (all 3 codes), and was the reason the RLI rule was made in the first place. But that's not what the umpire(s) judged here.

 

Since this thread is now into its 4th page, I will repeat the OP:

 

BR bunts a ball that is fielded by F2, BR is running a step and a half in fair territory,F2 throws the ball above the BR and F3 catches the ball just before BR runs into F3 while both are on the inside part of the bag. F3 subsequently drops the ball due to the contact.

 

This is a RLV in all codes.  The rule allows the BR to exit  the running lane with one step, stride, etc. to touch the base.  A BR who has been out of the lane the whole time (as in the OP), does not get this one step.  For him, the running lane rule is applicable from the beginning of the lane until the BR touches the base.  Since F3 was on the inside part of the bag, the contact certainly occurred before the BR touched the base.  Therefore, the rule was in effect at the time of the contact.  Now, the question is:  Did the contact interfere with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base?  The OP said F3 'caught' the ball just before the BR ran into him. and dropped it due to the contact.  There is no way the catch was complete when the collision took place.  The umpires erred in calling the BR out on the throw.  He should have been out for INT.

[Replacematt]

 

 

1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been successfully completed at 1B. (Under OBR or NCAA rules it would be impossible to have an RLI violation on this play.)

 

a. If the umpire had judged that the fielder did not maintain secure possession through the tag of 1B due to the collision (or, as T-Rav suggests, if the collision had occurred BEFORE the F3 had received the throw), this would be a proper RLI violation (all 3 codes), and was the reason the RLI rule was made in the first place. But that's not what the umpire(s) judged here.

 

Since this thread is now into its 4th page, I will repeat the OP:

 

BR bunts a ball that is fielded by F2, BR is running a step and a half in fair territory,F2 throws the ball above the BR and F3 catches the ball just before BR runs into F3 while both are on the inside part of the bag. F3 subsequently drops the ball due to the contact.

 

This is a RLV in all codes.  The rule allows the BR to exit  the running lane with one step, stride, etc. to touch the base.  A BR who has been out of the lane the whole time (as in the OP), does not get this one step.  For him, the running lane rule is applicable from the beginning of the lane until the BR touches the base.  Since F3 was on the inside part of the bag, the contact certainly occurred before the BR touched the base.  Therefore, the rule was in effect at the time of the contact.  Now, the question is:  Did the contact interfere with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base?  The OP said F3 'caught' the ball just before the BR ran into him. and dropped it due to the contact.  There is no way the catch was complete when the collision took place.  The umpires erred in calling the BR out on the throw.  He should have been out for INT.

 

 

There is no catch. This is a thrown ball. Once F3 has secure possession, BR is out.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

 

1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been successfully completed at 1B. (Under OBR or NCAA rules it would be impossible to have an RLI violation on this play.)

 

a. If the umpire had judged that the fielder did not maintain secure possession through the tag of 1B due to the collision (or, as T-Rav suggests, if the collision had occurred BEFORE the F3 had received the throw), this would be a proper RLI violation (all 3 codes), and was the reason the RLI rule was made in the first place. But that's not what the umpire(s) judged here.

 

Since this thread is now into its 4th page, I will repeat the OP:

 

BR bunts a ball that is fielded by F2, BR is running a step and a half in fair territory,F2 throws the ball above the BR and F3 catches the ball just before BR runs into F3 while both are on the inside part of the bag. F3 subsequently drops the ball due to the contact.

 

This is a RLV in all codes.  The rule allows the BR to exit  the running lane with one step, stride, etc. to touch the base.  A BR who has been out of the lane the whole time (as in the OP), does not get this one step.  For him, the running lane rule is applicable from the beginning of the lane until the BR touches the base.  Since F3 was on the inside part of the bag, the contact certainly occurred before the BR touched the base.  Therefore, the rule was in effect at the time of the contact.  Now, the question is:  Did the contact interfere with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base?  The OP said F3 'caught' the ball just before the BR ran into him. and dropped it due to the contact.  There is no way the catch was complete when the collision took place.  The umpires erred in calling the BR out on the throw.  He should have been out for INT.

 

 

There is no catch. This is a thrown ball. Once F3 has secure possession, BR is out.

 

Agreed.  I'm saying there was never secure possession.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

1. I am inclined to agree with those suggesting this is NOT RLI since the collision occurred after the play had been successfully completed at 1B. (Under OBR or NCAA rules it would be impossible to have an RLI violation on this play.)

 

a. If the umpire had judged that the fielder did not maintain secure possession through the tag of 1B due to the collision (or, as T-Rav suggests, if the collision had occurred BEFORE the F3 had received the throw), this would be a proper RLI violation (all 3 codes), and was the reason the RLI rule was made in the first place. But that's not what the umpire(s) judged here.

 

Since this thread is now into its 4th page, I will repeat the OP:

 

BR bunts a ball that is fielded by F2, BR is running a step and a half in fair territory,F2 throws the ball above the BR and F3 catches the ball just before BR runs into F3 while both are on the inside part of the bag. F3 subsequently drops the ball due to the contact.

 

This is a RLV in all codes.  The rule allows the BR to exit  the running lane with one step, stride, etc. to touch the base.  A BR who has been out of the lane the whole time (as in the OP), does not get this one step.  For him, the running lane rule is applicable from the beginning of the lane until the BR touches the base.  Since F3 was on the inside part of the bag, the contact certainly occurred before the BR touched the base.  Therefore, the rule was in effect at the time of the contact.  Now, the question is:  Did the contact interfere with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base?  The OP said F3 'caught' the ball just before the BR ran into him. and dropped it due to the contact.  There is no way the catch was complete when the collision took place.  The umpires erred in calling the BR out on the throw.  He should have been out for INT.

 

 

There is no catch. This is a thrown ball. Once F3 has secure possession, BR is out.

 

Agreed.  I'm saying there was never secure possession.

 

 

I'm saying there was, if for nothing else, BU adjudged that to be, and absent proper evidence to the contrary, I will defer to the officials in an OP.

 

I don't think anyone would have any argument with your logic if the premiss is that F3 didn't have secure possession.

[UmpJM]

Dash,

 

Your entire argument is based on the particulars of a play neither you nor I saw. Which is a pretty uninteresting conversation, frankly.

 

I completely concur with your analysis if the runner caused the fielder to drop the ball before completing the play. As I said above.

 

I believe we are in "violent agreement".

 

JM