Runner Lane Interference

[johnnyg08]

 

[Jimurray]

His "compliance" was not due to his knowledge that he should be in the running lane. It was because he knew enough to avoid the ball and the fielder. After that he knew enough to try and shield F3. I would say that I have seen worse no called but I don't think I can. 

[johnnyg08]

Completely agree with you on the compliance piece.

[Stk004]

Just to clarify, does it matter WHEN the runner interferes with the throw? Because it appears, at least to me, that when the BR is hit by the thrown ball, his foot is awfully close to being on the line, if not on it. But he was moving out of the lane when he was hit, and his following step took him out of the lane. Is this the proper application of the rule here, resulting in RLI and an out?

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Just to clarify, does it matter WHEN the runner interferes with the throw? Because it appears, at least to me, that when the BR is hit by the thrown ball, his foot is awfully close to being on the line, if not on it. But he was moving out of the lane when he was hit, and his following step took him out of the lane. Is this the proper application of the rule here, resulting in RLI and an out?

The runner needs to be out of the lane at the time he is hit.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

The runner needs to be out of the lane at the time he is hit.

There is an oddball interp out there, attributed to a highly respected umpire, that says the runner is not out of the lane if no foot is touching the ground outside the lane when he is hit. 

[Stk004]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There is an oddball interp out there, attributed to a highly respected umpire, that says the runner is not out of the lane if no foot is touching the ground outside the lane when he is hit. 

I was thinking about this but if he's running with his left foot on the line, which would have him 'in the lane', there will still be a portion of his body outside of the lane. So, as in the video, if his right foot is on the line but his left foot still hasn't touched the ground outside of the lane, should it be RLI? 

[Stk004]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

The runner needs to be out of the lane at the time he is hit.

Was he in the OP?

[jkumpire]

Being an Indians fan I am biased, but that looks to me like garden variety INF by the batter, and in the newspaper the Indians' manager Terry Francona after the game said he did not get an explanation why it was not INF. 

Obvious an ejected manager is not going to be an unimpeachable source here, especially when talking to the press after the game. But to me this has all the earmarks of an umpire who got surprised by a situation he did not expect and missed it. It happens, you have to move on and deal with it. Obviously Cleveland did not, and got shelled.  

 

[Rich Ives]

Looks like his foot was on the line at the time he was hit so no int

[basejester]

39 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There is an oddball interp out there, attributed to a highly respected umpire, that says the runner is not out of the lane if no foot is touching the ground outside the lane when he is hit. 

That's similar to the way the batter's box works.  In either case, what if the offensive player jumps?  (Yes, a third world play.)

 

[Jimurray]

Fd

37 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

I was thinking about this but if he's running with his left foot on the line, which would have him 'in the lane', there will still be a portion of his body outside of the lane. So, as in the video, if his right foot is on the line but his left foot still hasn't touched the ground outside of the lane, should it be RLI? 

The rule says "running". Whether his foot was touching the ground or not I have him "running" outside the lane. If you are going to use the "foot in the air interp" I think it needs instant replay.

[noumpere]

41 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

I was thinking about this but if he's running with his left foot on the line, which would have him 'in the lane', there will still be a portion of his body outside of the lane. So, as in the video, if his right foot is on the line but his left foot still hasn't touched the ground outside of the lane, should it be RLI? 

It's the feet that matter.  I use "the last time each foot hit, was it in the running lane?"  If the answer is "yes" for both feet, no INT.  If the answer is "no" for either foot, INT.

 

I thought he was out of the lane in the OP, but I didn't watch it that closely.

[Stk004]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 8:51 AM, noumpere said:

It's the feet that matter.  I use "the last time each foot hit, was it in the running lane?"  If the answer is "yes" for both feet, no INT.  If the answer is "no" for either foot, INT.

 

I thought he was out of the lane in the OP, but I didn't watch it that closely.

I agree with that interpretation. Watching the video closely I honestly can't tell where his right foot comes down at the time he is hit. If it's on the line, no INT. Not on the line, INT. 

[johnnyg08]

Look at the video...not the initial clip, but the other clips from the PU's angle.  

The right foot is out of the RL, which means that the left foot is also out.  

A tad tougher call in live action, but this is pretty standard RLI

[noumpere]

2 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

If the right foot is in the lane but the next step will land the left foot out of the RL, is it still INT? That's my main question here, loosely based off the OP.

It's not the "next" step, it's the "last" step. So, if the right foot was on the line, where was the left foot the last time it hit the ground?

 

(And, no, this method does not vie the runner the license to "jump" to the side in  a step to create INT -- that would be viewed as intentional)

[johnnyg08]

Three separate screen shots. 

Yes, it's analytical and we all agree that it's a tougher call in live action, with one shot at the call.

But it seems as though it would have been cleaner to grab the RLI here.

After all of these posts, I'll probably miss this in my game tonight.  LOL

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

Three separate screen shots. 

Yes, it's analytical and we all agree that it's a tougher call in live action, with one shot at the call.

But it seems as though it would have been cleaner to grab the RLI here.

After all of these posts, I'll probably miss this in my game tonight.  LOL

I do agree this is easier if you just call RLI. But isn't getting it right more important 

[johnnyg08]

Yes, hence the analysis.  In the spirit of fair play, common sense and the rule book, the correct call in this scenario is RLI

[NorthTexasUmp]

52 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

If the right foot is in the lane but the next step will land the left foot out of the RL, is it still INT? That's my main question here, loosely based off the OP.

I had a discussion about this type of play with a current ML umpire. His statement was that if he is running with his right foot inside the lane and the left foot outside the lane, RLI will be determined by which foot he is on when the ball hits him. If he is on his right foot, no interference, left foot, interference and he is out. FWIW!

[grayhawk]

RLI for sure.  He even made a move to his left, out of the lane, to get in the way.  Of course, I'm sure it was just because the base is in fair territory.