Jump to content

Runner Lane Interference on a Retired Batter Runner


johnnyg08
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1864 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

I was reading through the BRD (2016) and saw what was (at least to me) something that caught me be surprise. One other citation is from the NCAA Rule Book

Is the idea that the retired batter/runner is knowingly running outside of the runner's lane considered an act of "Intentional Interference"? 

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?  

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.45.45 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.12.29 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 5.50.02 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 9.27.46 AM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really confused as much as surprised that there is a requirement for a retired batter-runner and no other runners who can continue to run the bases. That's all. 

I get it. It's easy enough to enforce, just surprised that the runner's lane applies to a retired batter-runner and being out of the runner's lane is defined as an intentional act. 

If that's the case, it makes perfect sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Not really confused as much as surprised that there is a requirement for a retired batter-runner and no other runners who can continue to run the bases. That's all. 

I get it. It's easy enough to enforce, just surprised that the runner's lane applies to a retired batter-runner and being out of the runner's lane is defined as an intentional act. 

If that's the case, it makes perfect sense. 

I suppose it would fall outside of "running the bases normally".  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual has the same play (just worded slightly differently) as the 2016 BRD play 161-296. It’s listed as Example 3 on page 112—

R1, stealing. Batter bunts the pitch into the air and is running to first outside the running lane. The catcher catches the ball for the batter-runner’s out and attempts to throw to first for an appeal of R1’s failure to retouch. The throw hits the batter-runner (still outside the lane) square in the back and R1 slides into first safely:  interference. The batter-runner is already out, so the runner being played against, R1, is also out.

And for what it’s worth (no, not a Buffalo Springfield song reference), I agree with the BRD, Wendelstedt, Rumble (FED), and NCAA interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimurray said:

Strange, am I correct in recalling a ruling in one or all of the codes that if F3 puts the batter out on a grounder to 1B and throws home, hitting the B-R it doesn't matter if the batter was not in the lane and no INT unless intentional?

That's correct -- and it's in my (old) versions of JEA and J/R and in the FED case book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Strange, am I correct in recalling a ruling in one or all of the codes that if F3 puts the batter out on a grounder to 1B and throws home, hitting the B-R it doesn't matter if the batter was not in the lane and no INT unless intentional?

Yes. Agree. 

This is turning into a good discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Jimurray, here’s the FED case book play that Mr. noumpere mentioned--

2018 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.1 Situation C:  With R3 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R3. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path, the same as if he were advancing toward any other base. Since no play is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply. Had B2 intentionally made contact with the throw, the ball would be dead. B2 would be out and the umpire could call R3 out for B2’s interference. Otherwise, R3 returns to third base on the interference call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 12:59 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, here’s the FED case book play that Mr. noumpere mentioned--

2018 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.1 Situation C:  With R3 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R3. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path, the same as if he were advancing toward any other base. Since no play is made on B2 at first base, 8-4-1g does not apply. Had B2 intentionally made contact with the throw, the ball would be dead. B2 would be out and the umpire could call R3 out for B2’s interference. Otherwise, R3 returns to third base on the interference call.

So if I'm reading this right, this it interference under the NFHS..."on the line" is considered in the runner's lane. 

Am I reading it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...