Running Lane Violations (RLV)

[Jimurray]

Thanks for making me look this up.

While you are correct under FED it is a TOI infraction. I'm going to be 100% positive that I see that R1 or any other runner hasn't reached their advance base at the TOI.

Thank you for the discussion.

From the 2009 NFHS Preseason Guide.

So my 2007 FED interp and the absence in the rulebook of TOP and my wizened guidance was not good enough and you had to look it up? The question is, what is TOI for RLI.

[johnnyg08]

No it wasn't. TOI is the time of the infraction meaning by rule runners could advance on the interference which is absurd but apparently the fed rule

[Jimurray]

Thanks for making me look this up. 

 

While you are correct under FED it is a TOI infraction.  I'm going to be 100% positive that I see that R1 or any other runner hasn't reached their advance base at the TOI.  

 

Thank you for the discussion.

 

From the 2009 NFHS Preseason Guide.

The preseason guide could be problematic. I have seen the problem on another site. BR running outside lane the whole way, throw hits him with one foot in lane and one foot in the air. No RLI? The outside foot was touching outside before and most likely after he was hit. There is an unsubstantiated Evans ref that this is not RLI.

[maven]

Thanks for making me look this up.

While you are correct under FED it is a TOI infraction. I'm going to be 100% positive that I see that R1 or any other runner hasn't reached their advance base at the TOI.

Thank you for the discussion.

From the 2009 NFHS Preseason Guide.

The preseason guide could be problematic. I have seen the problem on another site. BR running outside lane the whole way, throw hits him with one foot in lane and one foot in the air. No RLI? The outside foot was touching outside before and most likely after he was hit. There is an unsubstantiated Evans ref that this is not RLI.

That needs to stay unsubstantiated, because it's wrong. Once he's out, he's out until he's back in the lane. Having a foot in the air is not exculpatory.

maven

[Thunderheads]

So, to make sure I'm not losing my mine on NFHS RLVs (which I don't think really changed at all from previous years):

 

Position demonstrate intent to interfere, but the BR still needs to interfere; e.g., when the BR outside the lane doesn't affect a good throw or the fielder receiving, it is not RLI.  But, if the throw were bad or the fielder misplayed the throw, it would be RLI.

 

Direction of the throw does matter; e.g., ground ball to F5 near 3B is thrown wild towards1B and it hits the BR outside the lane is not RLI.  But, if F5 were to field a bunt in front of the hill and his throw hits the BR outside the lane, it would be RLI. 

Why wouldn't that be RLI?  (in FED, quality of throw doesn't matter) correct?

[johnnyg08]

I'm not calling RLI unless the throw is coming from behind the runner.  

[Thunderheads]

I'm not calling RLI unless the throw is coming from behind the runner.  

I tend to agree, but .......my comment was more of a general question in regards to how the rule is "written"

[Majordave]

This is a great debate. I've called it many times. Although similar in many ways each one was still a unique, HTBT situation. I've had to warn or most often eject after every one of them I called.

In my opinion this is one of the toughest umpiring calls you can make. Just look at the nuances and details in this discussion alone. If you search this website's, Umpire.org's and officiating.com's forums the topic threads go on and on. Carl Childress in his Baseball Rules Differences dedicated 2 2/3 pages to this rule/situation.

It is almost always a "knotty problem" as the old-timers call it. But, as Johnnyg08 states above, which essentially echoes Carl Childress, the throw MUST come from behind the runner.

I highly recommend anyone having difficulty with this situation/rule purchase the BRD. It really helps.

Good luck with this call. Try as I may to calm coaches and players down after calling RLI and returning runners it always results in at least a warning. Usually an ejection for prolonged arguing. They just don't want to let it go. I think it's because there is just so much umpire judgment involved in the call. And, of course, coaches (and many umpires) simply do not understand the rule.

[johnnyg08]

Bottom line, get the whales and leave the minnows.  

 

If you have to determine the minute detail of if he's in or out, then it's probably best to let it go.

[Ironhead17]

I would have a problem calling a runner out who is hit by a throw if he is using either side of the lane w/ one foot touching the line. Both would have to be outside the lane. Just any errant throw from behind would not always result in RLI.

[maven]

I would have a problem calling a runner out who is hit by a throw if he is using either side of the lane w/ one foot touching the line. Both would have to be outside the lane. Just any errant throw from behind would not always result in RLI.

 

You're inventing your own rule. No wonder coaches b!tch about this call.

[Cav]

As is so often the case, much of the problem with this rule stems from its nebulous wording, thus allowing for interpretations, inconsistent applications, variations and explanations.

 

"Throw must come from behind the runner."  Where in the NFHS' rulebook or casebook is that written?  If that were so, then what is the NFHS definition of "behind" in regards to this rule?  Does it not warrant an interpretation like what was needed to define a "step" to a base by an in-contact pitcher; "distance and direction" being most common? 

 

This rule is not that complex and doesn't take a lot of space in the governing pubs.  It should alert the NFHS rules-gurus when they infer that coaches are complaining about crews not consistently applying the rule when this and several other learned communities of umpires debate its nuances page after page, year after year.      

 

 

[Thunderheads]

 

I would have a problem calling a runner out who is hit by a throw if he is using either side of the lane w/ one foot touching the line. Both would have to be outside the lane. Just any errant throw from behind would not always result in RLI.

 

You're inventing your own rule. No wonder coaches b!tch about this call.

 

Coaches don't bitch about this call because of the above, ....it's because they don't understand it.  However,...that doesn't help

[Thunderheads]

As is so often the case, much of the problem with this rule stems from its nebulous wording, thus allowing for interpretations, inconsistent applications, variations and explanations.

 

"Throw must come from behind the runner."  Where in the NFHS' rulebook or casebook is that written?  If that were so, then what is the NFHS definition of "behind" in regards to this rule?  Does it not warrant an interpretation like what was needed to define a "step" to a base by an in-contact pitcher; "distance and direction" being most common? 

 

This rule is not that complex and doesn't take a lot of space in the governing pubs.  It should alert the NFHS rules-gurus when they infer that coaches are complaining about crews not consistently applying the rule when this and several other learned communities of umpires debate its nuances page after page, year after year.      

That's what I was referring to in my post....  how is it WRITTEN?   

[johnnyg08]

Not everything is written down.  Sometimes you just have to umpire.

[Thunderheads]

Not everything is written down.  Sometimes you just have to umpire.

John .... it's just a question about the "fine print" of the rule, not that I have an issue with what's been discussed (just to clarify)

[johnnyg08]

 

"Throw must come from behind the runner."  Where in the NFHS' rulebook or casebook is that written?  If that were so, then what is the NFHS definition of "behind" in regards to this rule?  Does it not warrant an interpretation like what was needed to define a "step" to a base by an in-contact pitcher; "distance and direction" being most common? 

 

I haven't seen it written down anywhere, but it's the spirit of the rule. 

[Cav]

Not everything is written down.  Sometimes you just have to umpire.

 

And we all do, year after year, season after season, game after game.  Is it unreasonable to suggest that, after a century of baseball, most of this stuff should have been worked out already? 

 

Why do rules committees take complaints about inconsistent rule application, enforcement, interpretation and/or explanation, but refuse to accept that maybe the problem is the rule as written?   

[johnnyg08]

 

Not everything is written down.  Sometimes you just have to umpire.

 

And we all do, year after year, season after season, game after game.  Is it unreasonable to suggest that, after a century of baseball, most of this stuff should have been worked out already? 

 

Why do rules committees take complaints about inconsistent rule application, enforcement, interpretation and/or explanation, but refuse to accept that maybe the problem is the rule as written?   

 

 

You bring up many great points here.  The tough part is that the more specific a rule is written, the tougher it makes the gray areas.  FED tries to oversimplify rules so in theory, the lowest common denominator of umpire.  If the rule book gets too granular, that also makes umpiring difficult.  

[Cav]

 

You bring up many great points here.  The tough part is that the more specific a rule is written, the tougher it makes the gray areas.  FED tries to oversimplify rules so in theory, the lowest common denominator of umpire.  If the rule book gets to granular, that also makes umpiring difficult.  

 

 

Thanks, but like others have said, it probably has already been addressed many times, and probably by better writers than me.   (Or, is it I?)

 

What is meant by, "tougher it makes the gray areas"?  Is it "tougher" because there is less wiggle room?  Or, "tougher" because there may be more specific criteria that must be met before final determination of applicability? 

 

If the former, I cite the strike zone rule as an example of a very specific, granular (I had to look that one up!) rule as written.  The only "gray areas" are how an umpire sees the zone.  There is no argument allowed.  It's specifically in black and white and applied using the good judgment of the umpire.     

 

If the later, I cite the FPSR as an example of a rule that harbors little if any "wiggle room."  It also has numerous criteria that must be met that are written within the rulebook. 

 

I've heard it often said that NFHS "dumbs down" to its officials, but do they really?  I suggest that by electing to include/retain so many unnecessary differences from other main code books, that they, in effect, make it much more difficult to understand, to apply and to explain, in another word, to umpire in games with teams that, "JUST SAW THAT LAST NIGHT ON TV!"  (Sorry for shouting, but that's how I usually hear it said.)

[johnnyg08]

 

 

You bring up many great points here.  The tough part is that the more specific a rule is written, the tougher it makes the gray areas.  FED tries to oversimplify rules so in theory, the lowest common denominator of umpire.  If the rule book gets to granular, that also makes umpiring difficult.  

 

 

Thanks, but like others have said, it probably has already been addressed many times, and probably by better writers than me.   (Or, is it I?)

 

What is meant by, "tougher it makes the gray areas"?  Is it "tougher" because there is less wiggle room?  Or, "tougher" because there may be more specific criteria that must be met before final determination of applicability? 

 

If the former, I cite the strike zone rule as an example of a very specific, granular (I had to look that one up!) rule as written.  The only "gray areas" are how an umpire sees the zone.  There is no argument allowed.  It's specifically in black and white and applied using the good judgment of the umpire.     

 

If the later, I cite the FPSR as an example of a rule that harbors little if any "wiggle room."  It also has numerous criteria that must be met that are written within the rulebook. 

 

I've heard it often said that NFHS "dumbs down" to its officials, but do they really?  I suggest that by electing to include/retain so many unnecessary differences from other main code books, that they, in effect, make it much more difficult to understand, to apply and to explain, in another word, to umpire in games with teams that, "JUST SAW THAT LAST NIGHT ON TV!"  (Sorry for shouting, but that's how I usually hear it said.)

 

 

FPSR is very specific, yet it's still hardly ever called.  The rule is very clear.  It is happening for sure...I just think that overall, the quality of umpiring is not good enough at the FED level that even though it's written in the rule book, without any film study or additional training it's tough to get everybody on the same page.  

 

FED does dumb down the rules.  Verbal coach appeal, backswing/follow through batter interference, no quality throw requirement on RLI, etc...

[Majordave]

Get a BRD.  Carl discusses it.(Edit: "it" being the reason for only calling it when the throw comes from behind the runner)  as a way to stay out of trouble when you have to call it.  If the throw comes from behind the runner then it is easy to explain the rule.  The runner has a place to be the last half of the way to 1B (the running lane-marked or not).  If he isn't there, except for the last step at the base, and the throw hits him or isn't caught, and is a legitimate attempt to retire the runner, i.e. "quality throw" (umpire's judgment) then you call RLI.  If the throw is coming from behind the runner then the offensive team has no legitimate argument for you calling it.  

 

As I have said many times.......Sometimes you just have to umpire!

[Majordave]

BTW, Love CAV's comments about the NFHS trying to dumb down rules but instead making things more complicated. 

[Cav]

 

 

FPSR is very specific, yet it's still hardly ever called.  The rule is very clear.  It is happening for sure...I just think that overall, the quality of umpiring is not good enough at the FED level that even though it's written in the rule book, without any film study or additional training it's tough to get everybody on the same page.  

 

FED does dumb down the rules.  Verbal coach appeal, backswing/follow through batter interference, no quality throw requirement on RLI, etc...

 

 

Yes, FPSR is very specific and so should several others, RLI being high on the list.

 

I haven't yet mastered "cut and paste" to this forum from other sources (Rulekeep, that's a warning order) but I can incorporate all that's been discussed here by adding very little to the rule as written in NFHS rulebook. 

 

[catsbackr]

Majordave,

 

"Quality throw" is college not Fed.  Fed only requires a throw.