RLI ...once again draws an argument

[Thunderheads]

is this play EVER NOT argued???

[Nafxos]

Anybody have "that's nothing" here because it wasn't a "quality throw"?  It definitely would have bounced before reaching F3.

[stkjock]

Anybody have "that's nothing" here because it wasn't a "quality throw"?  It definitely would have bounced before reaching F3.

F3 can pick a "not quality throw" so how does one call it nothing?

[Nafxos]

It's just a question.  I was taught it had to be a quality throw to call RLI.  Just wondering if people here think that throw would qualify.  And would it matter to you what level of play we were talking about (i.e., would you use a different standard for a pre-shaving game vs. HS varsity vs. NCAA or pro)?

[UmpJeff]

F3 can pick a "not quality throw" so how does one call it nothing?

The answer to your question is in red above...

[Jimurray]

The answer to your question is in red above...

The Wendelstedt definition of quality throw is one which could reasonably expected to retire the runner. 

[stkjock]

The answer to your question is in red above...

I take that is part of the UM and not OBR?  I didn't recall that wording in OBR and just looked again and do not see it.

The Wendelstedt definition of quality throw is one which could reasonably expected to retire the runner. 

so in the example above - do you think that throw would reasonably be expected to retire the runner?

[Jimurray]

I take that is part of the UM and not OBR?  I didn't recall that wording in OBR and just looked again and do not see it.

so in the example above - do you think that throw would reasonably be expected to retire the runner?

There is no wording about the quality of the throw in the OBR rulebook. The Wendelstedt Umpire Manual has that interp. I don't know the Umpire School/PBUC teaches it that way.

I do have a throw that could have retired the runner in the video.

[stkjock]

Thank you Jim

[johnnyg08]

A throw in the dirt at levels that I'm working, I would lean toward not calling RLI on the basis of a poor throw...however, under FED rules, a quality throw is not required, only a throw so in a FED game, I would have to call RLI if the runner was non compliant except for the last couple steps to the base since the base is in fair territory

[Nafxos]

I'm in Massachusetts, so we don't use FED rules ever.  I think I'd have nothing here.  Throw was wide and in the dirt. 

[johnnyg08]

This call is similar to half swings.  There is a lot of judgment here.  Any call that involves a lot of judgment is going to be argued....almost always.

[johnnyg08]

What separates a good umpire from a great umpire is that a great umpire will hang his nuts out there and make a big judgment call.  

[grayhawk]

If you don't have RLI on this play, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of the rule.  There is no question that the runner hindered the ability of F3 to receive the throw.  It hit the BR's foot, for goodness sake!  

[Rich Ives]

It's just a question.  I was taught it had to be a quality throw to call RLI.  Just wondering if people here think that throw would qualify.  And would it matter to you what level of play we were talking about (i.e., would you use a different standard for a pre-shaving game vs. HS varsity vs. NCAA or pro)?

It would to me.

[Nafxos]

If you don't have RLI on this play, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of the rule.  There is no question that the runner hindered the ability of F3 to receive the throw.  It hit the BR's foot, for goodness sake!  

I'm always trying to get better, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the rule.  But I've always had "it must be a quality throw" drilled into me when it comes to RLI.  F1 fields the ball halfway between the mound and the plate and has plenty of space to throw to F3, either at the bag on or to the inside towards F4.  Instead he bounces it short and on the line, where it hits the runner in the foot.  That doesn't scream "quality" to me.

 

[mrumpiresir]

My judgement on this play will be influenced by the actions of the the runner. In my judgement, he made a move to intentionally hinder the fielder making a play on the throw that any pro player would routinely catch.   I agree with the out call.

[grayhawk]

I'm always trying to get better, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the rule.  But I've always had "it must be a quality throw" drilled into me when it comes to RLI.  F1 fields the ball halfway between the mound and the plate and has plenty of space to throw to F3, either at the bag on or to the inside towards F4.  Instead he bounces it short and on the line, where it hits the runner in the foot.  That doesn't scream "quality" to me.

 

If the BR had been in the running lane, F3 would have had an opportunity to field the throw.  A "quality throw" doesn't have to be pretty.  It's a throw that F3 has a reasonable opportunity to receive (and retire the BR).  If a BR gets hit with a throw from behind while out of the lane, with very few exceptions, interference should be called.

[Nafxos]

If the BR had been in the running lane, F3 would have had an opportunity to field the throw.  A "quality throw" doesn't have to be pretty.  It's a throw that F3 has a reasonable opportunity to receive (and retire the BR).  If a BR gets hit with a throw from behind while out of the lane, with very few exceptions, interference should be called.

I hear you.  And I honestly have no problem with grabbing an out here.  But I also think that if BR had been in the running lane, and then come out in the last stride or two to touch first, the throw still would have hit him in almost the exact same spot.

 

[grayhawk]

I hear you.  And I honestly have no problem with grabbing an out here.  But I also think that if BR had been in the running lane, and then come out in the last stride or two to touch first, the throw still would have hit him in almost the exact same spot.

 

And that's the exception.  If the BR is "clean" in the last half, but exits the lane on his last stride and gets hit, then it's generally nothing.  A BR that's "dirty" in the last half is not afforded this latitude.

[UmpJeff]

If the BR had been in the running lane, F3 would have had an opportunity to field the throw.  A "quality throw" doesn't have to be pretty.  It's a throw that F3 has a reasonable opportunity to receive (and retire the BR).  If a BR gets hit with a throw from behind while out of the lane, with very few exceptions, interference should be called.

You've convinced me.  I agree with your interpretation, grayhawk.  I stand corrected...

[Senor Azul]

Here’s an official interpretation from Jim Evans that can be found in the 2014 edition of the BRD:

A runner who has advanced the entire distance from home plate to first in fair territory making no effort to run within the lane is not extended the same leniency as the runner who runs in the lane as required and then cuts into fair territory near the base to touch it. (JEA/7:94)

 

The WUM supports this by saying:

A runner that is running the entire distance outside of the running lane will not be protected if he interferes with a play at first base, even if it is in his last stride or step to the base. In order to be protected, this last step must be when he first exits the running lane.

[maven]

If the BR had been in the running lane, F3 would have had an opportunity to field the throw.  A "quality throw" doesn't have to be pretty.  It's a throw that F3 has a reasonable opportunity to receive (and retire the BR).  If a BR gets hit with a throw from behind while out of the lane, with very few exceptions, interference should be called.

I agree: to understand the term 'quality throw' beyond what WUM says ("reasonable opportunity to retire the BR"), consider a throw that FAILS to be sufficiently "quality." The throws that get discounted are the ones that in college football would be ruled "uncatchable": out of reach over F3's head, so wide he has to come off the base, etc. In the dirt near 1B is still a "quality throw" at any level.

The rationale for this philosophy is that this type of INT is unusual: whereas most INT involves hindering a fielder who is fielding a batted ball or making a throw, RLI involves hindering a fielder who is TAKING a throw. If the throw is uncatchable — not quality — then the fielder cannot be hindered because he cannot catch it, and as we know, no hindrance = no INT.

FED has dispensed with the philosophy of a quality throw in order to preclude the need for F2 to drill the runner. That should entail, of course, that there need not be any actual hindrance in order to rule INT: throw + runner outside lane = RLI. And yet 8-4-1g1 specifically excludes action where there is no hindrance, which seems to bring us right back to the concept of a quality throw. Confusing? Yes, yes it is.

FED ends up asking us to judge whether the runner outside the lane hindered F2's throw, so that F2 had to try to "throw around" the runner. Hence the phrase "interfere with a fielder or a throw" in 8-4-1g1. Where FED intended to make the RLI rule easier to apply, they've in fact made the judgment more difficult, since we have to judge hindrance at both ends of the throw instead of just the end of it.

For all codes, the defense gets any benefit of the doubt about whether the fielder taking the throw is hindered by a runner out of the lane.

[Senor Azul]

Here’s the actual official interpretation from Wendelstedt about the throw:

 

If the throw being made to first base is so far away from the fielder fielding the ball that there is no realistic chance of the throw retiring the runner, then no interference should be called. Even so, just because a fielder must leave the bag to catch the throw does not prohibit calling interference for running outside the running lane. The determination is not whether the throw is true [a quality throw] but whether it could still reasonably retire the runner. (WUM p.177)
 

 

[Senor Azul]

To answer Mr. Nafxos’ earlier question about consideration of level of play—yes. Check out the definition of “Ordinary Effort”  found in the Definitions of Terms (old rule 2.00):

ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions.

(Ordinary Effort) Comment: This standard, called for several times in the Official Scoring Rules (e.g., Rules 9.05(a)(3) (Rule 10.05(a)(3)), 9.05(a)(4) (Rule 10.05(a)(4)), 9.05(a)(6) (Rule 10.05(a)(6)), 9.05(b)(3) (Base Hits) (Rule 10.05(b)(3) (Base Hits)); 9.08(b) (Sacrifices) (Rule 10.08(b)) (Sacrifices)); 9.12(a)(1) Comment ((Rule 10.12(a)(1) Comment), 9.12(d)(2) (Errors) ((Rule 10.12(d)(2) (Errors)); and 9.13(a), 9.13(b) (Wild Pitches and Passed Balls) (Rule 10.13(a)), 10.13(b) (Wild Pitches and Passed Balls)) and in the Official Baseball Rules (e.g., Definition of Terms, Infield Fly), is an objective standard in regard to any particular fielder. In other words, even if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what an average fielder at that position in that league would have made in a situation, the official scorer should charge that fielder with an error.