RLI called at TOT with B-R out of lane at 45’ or more.

[Jimurray]

In years past I posted an NFHS or NCAA video wanting RLI called when the throw was initiated if the B-R was out of the lane even when the throw retired the B-R. Most responses back then agreed that the RLI would be ignored if the B-R was retired on the throw and that’s how I call it in FED and it seems to be called in OBR and NCAA. But does the wording in each code’s rule actually allow RLi to be called at or after the moment the B-R passes 45’ out of the lane and a throw is made. This interp has surfaced again in my neck of the woods. 

[Jglopez7]

11 hours ago, Jimurray said:

In years past I posted an NFHS or NCAA video wanting RLI called when the throw was initiated if the B-R was out of the lane even when the throw retired the B-R. Most responses back then agreed that the RLI would be ignored if the B-R was retired on the throw and that’s how I call it in FED and it seems to be called in OBR and NCAA. But does the wording in each code’s rule actually allow RLi to be called at or after the moment the B-R passes 45’ out of the lane and a throw is made. This interp has surfaced again in my neck of the woods. 

You must have received the TASO Bulletin. 

TASO Bulletin sent this state wide:

The batter bunts the pitch out in front of the plate. The catcher gets to the ball, picks it up and goes to throw to first base. Meanwhile, the batter runner is running outside the running lane on the side from which the throw will be made. As the throw is being made, the umpire, who is well aware that if he calls a running lane violation at this moment, he will unleash the gates of hades, stays quiet and hopes the out is made at first, which it is. Satisfied, the umpire goes back to home plate; no one is any wiser. Everyone thinks what a great job he is doing.

But, he should have called the running lane interference, and called the batter-runner out and also, returned the runner, who advanced to third, back to second. By not making the call, a runner advanced when he should not have. In this particular play, the runner (who should be at second but is now at third) goes home on a passed ball and ties the game, which goes 16 innings before a winner is determined.

 

Rule states: 

Section 4. Runner is out 

he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or

1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the
batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

[Velho]

28 minutes ago, Jglopez7 said:

But, he should have called the running lane interference, and called the batter-runner out and also, returned the runner, who advanced to third, back to second.

Makes sense to me. This ain't basketball where we judge the degree of the foul being enough to get a whistle by whether the offense scored anyway.

[Jimurray]

On 4/13/2024 at 11:45 AM, Jglopez7 said:

You must have received the TASO Bulletin. 

TASO Bulletin sent this state wide:

The batter bunts the pitch out in front of the plate. The catcher gets to the ball, picks it up and goes to throw to first base. Meanwhile, the batter runner is running outside the running lane on the side from which the throw will be made. As the throw is being made, the umpire, who is well aware that if he calls a running lane violation at this moment, he will unleash the gates of hades, stays quiet and hopes the out is made at first, which it is. Satisfied, the umpire goes back to home plate; no one is any wiser. Everyone thinks what a great job he is doing.

But, he should have called the running lane interference, and called the batter-runner out and also, returned the runner, who advanced to third, back to second. By not making the call, a runner advanced when he should not have. In this particular play, the runner (who should be at second but is now at third) goes home on a passed ball and ties the game, which goes 16 innings before a winner is determined.

 

Rule states: 

Section 4. Runner is out 

he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base; or

1. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the
batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

It's now official throughout the country. The question why, using their rationale, is a throw necessary? May 9, 2024 memo to all state liaisons:

"Our interpretation is running lane violations are a risk minimization issue. Someone can be seriously injured. Interference should be called at the moment when the catcher throws the ball to first base when the batter-runner is outside the running lane on the side from which the throw is being made. To not call interference is to encourage this practice as well as to encourage coaches having their catchers hit the batter-runner to get the interference call and keep runner(s) on base from advancing. If you have any questions regarding what we are observing, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Have a wonderful State Baseball Championship Season!"

[834k3r]

12 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The question why, using their rationale, is a throw necessary?

Our association discussed this very question during our pre-season clinics. Even the evaluation committee was split on the question, but we landed on "no, a throw isn't necessary" but I'm not aware of the situation coming up this season for any of us.

[The Man in Blue]

So … just going to say it … 

 

FIX THE RULE IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.

 

How do you interpret something to say something that it very expressly says the opposite of?  Oh yeah, NFHS.

Since it is interference, I take it we have an immediate dead ball and all runners return to the base last touched at time of pitch.  That will go well.

[Richvee]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:45 PM, Jglopez7 said:

. This infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw

Sorry. As @The Man in Bluehas said. This needs to be a rules change, not an interpretation. 

[Jglopez7]

Here is the memo. 

 

https://taso.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Baseball-Memo-Running-Lane-Violation-0592024.pdf

[Richvee]

 
Where  is the line of delineation?? 
Does the throw have to be from a catcher?
What if F1 or F5 fields the ball?  How far from home plate does the ball have to be before we don’t call RLI?  
If f6 charges a chopper, do we kill that play if the BR is inside the lane? 

What if it’s a great bunt and there’s no throw because BR clearly beats it out, but he was inside the foul line  

🤷‍♂️🙄

[Richvee]

I don’t understand the rational of calling before the play is over if this is because umpires dont know the rule that other runners must return as is suggested in this memo. Sorry this is just asinine. 

[The Man in Blue]

Now coaches will be coaching catchers to move to the side the runner is on before throwing the ball, thus increasing the chances of hitting the runner.

[Jimurray]

12 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Our association discussed this very question during our pre-season clinics. Even the evaluation committee was split on the question, but we landed on "no, a throw isn't necessary" but I'm not aware of the situation coming up this season for any of us.

It will in most areas of the country in playoff season. And how did your committee ignore all codes requiring a throw, albeit it making sense for the inane FED interp. By FED interp or case play a throw is required. Do state liaisons/interpreters want this called in the postseason when nobody has called it, appropriately if you read the rule, in the regular season. I don't like expounding on anything at the plate meeting but this better be expounded upon.

Aside, there is a problem with the rule and enforcement in all codes. MLB expanded the lane because of uneven and varying enforcement and we all know guys that don't have the gonads to call it in our/your neck of the woods when it is an obvious violation. And then we have the grey areas.

[834k3r]

11 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It will in most areas of the country in playoff season. And how did your committee ignore all codes requiring a throw, albeit it making sense for the inane FED interp. By FED interp or case play a throw is required. Do state liaisons/interpreters want this called in the postseason when nobody has called it, appropriately if you read the rule, in the regular season. I don't like expounding on anything at the plate meeting but this better be expounded upon.

Aside, there is a problem with the rule and enforcement in all codes. MLB expanded the lane because of uneven and varying enforcement and we all know guys that don't have the gonads to call it in our/your neck of the woods when it is an obvious violation. And then we have the grey areas.

I get what you're saying. Our association leadership (of which I'm not a part) keyed on the use of or in the rule wording. Specifically taking the meaning to say "...runs outside the three-foot running lane...while the ball is being fielded or [runs outside the three-foot running lane while the ball is being] thrown to first base." (text in brackets added for clarity)

[Richvee]

55 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

I get what you're saying. Our association leadership (of which I'm not a part) keyed on the use of or in the rule wording. Specifically taking the meaning to say "...runs outside the three-foot running lane...while the ball is being fielded or [runs outside the three-foot running lane while the ball is being] thrown to first base." (text in brackets added for clarity)

. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the
batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

And just ignore this part I guess 

[grayhawk]

14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

. This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the
batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

And just ignore this part I guess 

Man, I do not miss working HS baseball...

[Tog Gee]

21 hours ago, Richvee said:

This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the
batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw.

And just ignore this part I guess 

If it's a fair bunt a few feet in front of the plate: If the runner exits the lane to the right, towards the first base dugout (for whatever reason), then they clearly didn't interfere. They exited the lane but they were actually farther away from the throw than if they were in the lane.

Or F4 fields a grounder and throws to first. A runner out of the lane, 20 feet from the bag isn't interfering. Nowhere near the throw.

Edited yesterday at 01:16 PM by Tog Gee

[Tog Gee]

"Our interpretation is running lane violations are a risk minimization issue. Someone can be seriously injured. Interference should be called at the moment when the catcher throws the ball to first base when the batter-runner is outside the running lane on the side from which the throw is being made. To not call interference is to encourage this practice as well as to encourage coaches having their catchers hit the batter-runner to get the interference call and keep runner(s) on base from advancing. If you have any questions regarding what we are observing, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Have a wonderful State Baseball Championship Season!"

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Tog Gee said:

"Our interpretation is running lane violations are a risk minimization issue. Someone can be seriously injured. Interference should be called at the moment when the catcher throws the ball to first base when the batter-runner is outside the running lane on the side from which the throw is being made. To not call interference is to encourage this practice as well as to encourage coaches having their catchers hit the batter-runner to get the interference call and keep runner(s) on base from advancing. If you have any questions regarding what we are observing, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Have a wonderful State Baseball Championship Season!"

So you require a throw to minimize risk?

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

"Our interpretation is running lane violations are a risk minimization issue. Someone can be seriously injured. Interference should be called at the moment when the catcher throws the ball to first base when the batter-runner is outside the running lane on the side from which the throw is being made. To not call interference is to encourage this practice as well as to encourage coaches having their catchers hit the batter-runner to get the interference call and keep runner(s) on base from advancing. If you have any questions regarding what we are observing, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Have a wonderful State Baseball Championship Season!"

I understand what the "interpretation" says. My argument is, it's NOT an interpretation, it's a change in the rule. No matter where the runner is running, if the throw is completed to 1B, it didn't interfere with the fielder or the throw. The rule clearly states if it doesn't interfere, don't call it. Interpretations should clarify rules, Not contradict them

[johnnyg08]

We have the postseason coming up in our state. 
 

I wonder how we'll respond to this...if at all. 

With how we've been interpreting it, this would be quite a departure.

Thanks for sharing this. 

[The Man in Blue]

You know, if this truly is a safety issue, there is another unpopular step that makes FAR more sense than this fiasco …

 

[Richvee]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

You know, if this truly is a safety issue, there is another unpopular step that makes FAR more sense than this fiasco …

 

Never thought I'd say this. I actually prefer this over calling interference when there is none. 

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Never thought I'd say this. I actually prefer this over calling interference when there is none. 

I felt the same, but I've come around. Let's pretend for a moment that it comes to fruition....

Batter hits a gapper and rounds 1B hard giving him a shot at a triple. 

What base do they push off of when they try to advance? Is using the orange base ever an offensive requirement or is it highly encouraged? 

[Umpy]

The Little League rulebook (7.15) states the Orange base is only a requirement for the offense when a play is being made on the Batter Runner.

It also states that the Defense can use the Orange base in an uncaught third strike situation.  They've thought of EVERYTHING.

[johnnyg08]

47 minutes ago, Umpy said:

The Little League rulebook (7.15) states the Orange base is only a requirement for the offense when a play is being made on the Batter Runner.

It also states that the Defense can use the Orange base in an uncaught third strike situation.  They've thought of EVERYTHING.

Thank you. Sorry to hijack. Back to the topic at hand.