RLI

[refump10]

I was reading the other thread about the RLI called in a Little League game.  The discussion went briefly to the HS interpretation of the ruling.  I thought I would move over to the High School section to continue that part of the discussion to avoid high jacking the other thread. There was a quotation in one of the posts that quoted and interp from 2004:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)"

My confusion over this interpretation is that I thought in FED that quality of throw is not a factor when determining RLI.  I also note that in the 2017 Rule Book, there is no exception listed to 8-4-1g.  I think this ruling should correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this ruling conforms with the rule as written.

Thoughts?

[maven]

6 minutes ago, refump10 said:

My confusion over this interpretation is that I thought in FED that quality of throw is not a factor when determining RLI.  I also note that in the 2017 Rule Book, there is no exception listed to 8-4-1g.  I think this ruling should correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this ruling conforms with the rule as written.

Remember that RLI has 3 necessary elements, without any one of which we properly no-call:

1. Runner out of the lane by rule
2. A throw to a fielder at 1B (not necessarily quality)
3. Hindrance of the fielder taking the throw by the BR due to his illegal position

The interp is based on the fact that, when the fielders play "inside" and the BR is "outside," his illegal position did not hinder the fielder taking the throw.

If you want to read the case play as sneaking in the quality concept, that's probably not far off base. But it is firmly grounded in the baseball fundamental that no hindrance = no INT.

[refump10]

Thanks Maven.  I got a little "tunnel vision" and didn't expand my thinking to the hindrance part of the equation.  This is another case where I wish FED would clean up the rule and conform with OBR (and college) and just get rid of the "thrown" and "throw" words.  Deleting those two words would fix it.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Plus, I would add that something that could be easily overlooked if not "marked clearly" the runner cannot run in the lane, until they REACH the lane (45' away).

[Senor Azul]

There was a related case play from the 2004 revisions:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

[grayhawk]

Thanks Maven.  I got a little "tunnel vision" and didn't expand my thinking to the hindrance part of the equation.  This is another case where I wish FED would clean up the rule and conform with OBR (and college) and just get rid of the "thrown" and "throw" words.  Deleting those two words would fix it.

NCAA and Fed are actually the same. Both consider it to be interference if either the throw, or the fielder receiving the throw are hindered.

[VolUmp]

Going back to the OP, isn't this poorly worded to simply state, " ... B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back ... "

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

After all, the running lane IS in foul territory except for the foul line itself. 

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

 

 

More cans of sprayable chalk may be in order.

[Jimurray]

55 minutes ago, MadMax said:

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

 

 

More cans of sprayable chalk may be in order.

What's your beef with FED, other than most of our common quibbles? You never responded in another thread about a common mechanics issue that was common to all codes? I've encountered many non FED fields without the lane, none at levels above FED and very few at FED levels in my area? 

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, MadMax said:

... except Fed has to / chooses to accommodate and include the least common denominator in its domain; not every field – Varsity, JV, Freshman or otherwise – is compelled to have the 45' running lane marked.

Whether it's marked or not, it still exists -- and if the case play in question doesn't mention the runner being out of the lane, I agree that it would be more clear if it did.

[Richvee]

On 08/11/2017 at 5:45 PM, VolUmp said:

Going back to the OP, isn't this poorly worded to simply state, " ... B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back ... "

I gather that the intent is to say, "B1 is running in foul territory to the right of the running lane."

After all, the running lane IS in foul territory except for the foul line itself. 

I'd agree 100% if it were a test question as opposed to a case play. Don't read the situation as a "question" and the ruling as the "answer". Read the whole thing as one. Play says "running in foul territory", Ruling  clarifies BR was not in the runner's lane.

Then again, States like mine are known to pull test questions straight from case plays, and this would sure be a poor question as written.