Running Lane INT

[jimurrayalterego]

TASO has caved to NFHS Interp of RLI. No question how they want it called. B-R outside the lane on the same side as the throw from behind past the 45' mark, throw is released, you have RLI. we will be educating coaches in upcoming scrimmages. Rationalization is we (not me) weren't calling it when it really happened to "interfere with a fielder or a throw" so coaches were teaching their catchers to hit the runner which is a safety issue. I suspect umps with no rules knowledge or gonads would not even call it then. But, if it's a safety issue, why require a throw? The instinct of F2 is to hit F3. If there is a runner in the way do the coaches have to tell F2 to airball it into RF?

[SeeingEyeDog]

So, under this interpretation...if F2 actually releases a throw WHILE on the same side of the baseline as the B-R AND hits B-R, is that also an automatic malicious contact call? Or is that part of it still up for judgement?

~Dawg

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

So, under this interpretation...if F2 actually releases a throw WHILE on the same side of the baseline as the B-R AND hits B-R, is that also an automatic malicious contact call? Or is that part of it still up for judgement?

~Dawg

Good question.

[SeeingEyeDog]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Good question.

My thinking is...if you are telling me as an umpire that you want this (or anything else for that matter...) called because they specifically cited and I quote, "...this is a safety issue." and you and your fellow umpires are learning coaches and players during pre-season scrimmages on this and F2 (or any other fielder...) CREATES the unsafe situation anyway, throws AND hits the B-R? Then in my opinion we have malicious contact/conduct and by rule...an ejection. IF...that's what we have. Does it matter what the fielder "meant" to do? We're not mind readers. If they've been told not to do something because it's unsafe and they do it anyway...then how do we expect them to learn if there are no consequences?

This is the side of umpiring a baseball game and enforcing the rules that people around the game EXCEPT the umpires just do not understand. Nearly every rule, nearly every rule interpretation has a cascading effect. We're trying to solve X and we then create Y and Z. Those instituting rules changes and rule interpretation changes do not always see the possible cascades. Umpires do.

Reasonable adults who are caretakers of The Game...state officials, ADs, UICs, Coaches, Umpires and Parents can all agree we want a measure of safety. How much is enough? How much is too much?

~Dawg

[grayhawk]

As the instructor in my very first high school umpire association classroom told me many years back:

"This isn't baseball. This is high school."

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

TASO has caved to NFHS Interp of RLI. No question how they want it called. B-R outside the lane on the same side as the throw from behind past the 45' mark, throw is released, you have RLI. we will be educating coaches in upcoming scrimmages. Rationalization is we (not me) weren't calling it when it really happened to "interfere with a fielder or a throw" so coaches were teaching their catchers to hit the runner which is a safety issue. I suspect umps with no rules knowledge or gonads would not even call it then. But, if it's a safety issue, why require a throw? The instinct of F2 is to hit F3. If there is a runner in the way do the coaches have to tell F2 to airball it into RF?

 

I'm a little confused . . . I thought TASO was the one who started this whole thing and Mr. Hopkins dumped a bucket of chum in the water?

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I'm a little confused . . . I thought TASO was the one who started this whole thing and Mr. Hopkins dumped a bucket of chum in the water?

The original interp was, circa 5 to 10 years ago, on the old NFHS Arbiter site with a video of RLI that they say should have been called with a runner out of the lane being thrown out. I posted it on here as Jimurray a long time ago and most of us thought it was wrong. Jimurray doesn't exist anymore as the moderator of this site won't, can't, doesn't have time to, correct an issue with changing your email. I will see if I can't fish that old post up. It has the still shots of what NFHS calls RLI. Nobody in TASO has been calling it like that for a while. To be truthfull many in TASO in the past haven't been calling it at all due to lack of rules knowledge or gonads while it hasn't been called,no called correctly or not also in MLB and NCAA due to? I will try to find the original NFHS interp that I posted on here.

[Richvee]

Wonderful... While MLB makes the bases bigger and expands the running lane to the grass line, and NCAA starts it's way into the world of the double first base on a larger scale...all in the name of safety and leading to LESS calls of the controversial  RLI....the FED pivots and says "We're gonna have you guys call it even when there's no interference."...SMH

[jimurrayalterego]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Wonderful... While MLB makes the bases bigger and expands the running lane to the grass line, and NCAA starts it's way into the world of the double first base on a larger scale...all in the name of safety and leading to LESS calls of the controversial  RLI....the FED pivots and says "We're gonna have you guys call it even when there's no interference."...SMH

FED pivoted a long time ago. TASO just picked up on last spring. What does your association say now?

 

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, jimurrayalterego said:

FED pivoted a long time ago. TASO just picked up on last spring. What does your association say now?

 

Our first meeting is not until February. I don't even want to bring it up unless they do...Then I can plead ignorance to the new interp and call it correctly. the same way as before. 

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The instinct of F2 is to hit F3.

The instinct should be to just make a throw to first / F3 as if the runner weren't there.  Then, it  would be more obvious that there was RLI.

[maven]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

Wonderful... While MLB makes the bases bigger and expands the running lane to the grass line, and NCAA starts it's way into the world of the double first base on a larger scale...all in the name of safety and leading to LESS calls of the controversial  RLI....the FED pivots and says "We're gonna have you guys call it even when there's no interference."...SMH

FED's approach is the obvious result of (1) the acknowledged need to protect both runners and fielders at all levels, pro and amateur, and (2) FED's lack of control over HS fields. 

FED has no way to make mandate bigger bases, expanded running lanes, or double bases (though they could recommend all of those). They can change an interp with the stroke of a pen.

[SeeingEyeDog]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Jimurray doesn't exist anymore as the moderator of this site won't, can't, doesn't have time to, correct an issue with changing your email.

Thank you very much for sharing this. Ever since you pivoted to this new screen name I have spent way too much time considering the possibilities of why you made this change. Sometimes, the most obvious answer IS...the answer.

~Dawg

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, maven said:

FED's approach is the obvious result of (1) the acknowledged need to protect both runners and fielders at all levels, pro and amateur, and (2) FED's lack of control over HS fields. 

FED has no way to make mandate bigger bases, expanded running lanes, or double bases (though they could recommend all of those). They can change an interp with the stroke of a pen.

But FED's changes do not seem to promote better safety. I still requires a throw, it still has the same narrow lane with a runner running to same narrow base located outside the lane. I'm pretty sure schools can afford a fourth base and a can of spray paint.....Or have them laying around somewhere. If not I'm not to sure they should be fielding a team.  

[jimurrayalterego]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I'm a little confused . . . I thought TASO was the one who started this whole thing and Mr. Hopkins dumped a bucket of chum in the water?

TASO only just realized this last spring. It's been an NFHS interp since at least 2015:

 

[The Man in Blue]

If it was a video that existed on Arbiter 10 years ago . . . where is somebody supposed to find this (made up) information today?  I know we saw a TASO memo last year, but I cannot justify using that as the basis of a call, particularly one that will spark outrage, as this will.

An image of the legendary memo sent to the state associations can be found in this thread: 

 

but where would your average run of the mill umpire find this information?

[jimurrayalterego]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

If it was a video that existed on Arbiter 10 years ago . . . where is somebody supposed to find this (made up) information today?  I know we saw a TASO memo last year, but I cannot justify using that as the basis of a call, particularly one that will spark outrage, as this will.

An image of the legendary memo sent to the state associations can be found in this thread: 

 

but where would your average run of the mill umpire find this information?

Your state association rules umpire will either let you know or keep it under wraps. How and or why our state interpreter, a good guy and interpreter btw, got religion on this I do not know. But TASO is quoting NFHS as to the rationale. Maybe NFHS thinks the written rule would give you guidance and thought all their umps were calling it as they espoused. You call the offender out unless you can ignore it. Since being out of the lane on the same side as the ball does "interfere with a throw", F2 having to throw around the runner, at the point of the release, we don't care if it put the runner out. That's a stretch but I guess that's what we in Texas have.

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

TASO only just realized this last spring. It's been an NFHS interp since at least 2015:

 

It’s been ten years since these videos. I think the consensus at the time was “this must not be what they really mean. If it was, they would amend the rule and delete the last half of the sentence in 8.4.1(g)1”.

So we’ve gone on for 9 years, never seeing a POE, or rule edit to confirm the ‘15 video interps.  Nine years! Nine years to fix the rule so it doesn’t conflict with their interpretation. But Hopkins does nothing. Until the spring of ‘24 when he releases a memo and blames the confusion on umpires for not knowing the rule, or being afraid to enforce it fearing pushback.
Straight from the memo….

“3) Umpires (if aware) will only address the running lane
violation, but not deal with the advancing runner(s) who benefitted from this offensive
gamesmanship and rule violation.”

Really?  This is an insult to any competent high school umpire who dedicates their time and energy to learning and enforcing the rules as written, and doing the job to the best of their abilities. Yeah, this hits a nerve with me. Sorry for the rant. 

[jimurrayalterego]

6 minutes ago, Richvee said:

It’s been ten years since these videos. I think the consensus at the time was “this must not be what they really mean. If it was, they would amend the rule and delete the last half of the sentence in 8.4.1(g)1”.

 

 

 

Some would say being out of the lane, in itself, interferes with the throw. I don't agree but back then I think, with a feeble memory, we had some confusing NCAA guidance on RLI and a throw. 

[Richvee]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Some would say being out of the lane, in itself, interferes with the throw. I don't agree but back then I think, with a feeble memory, we had some confusing NCAA guidance on RLI and a throw. 

If that’s how they want called, fine. My gripe is FED has had ten years to clarify the rule, make it a POE,  but they opted to say nothing. Then he puts out a memo and  blames umpires for lack of enforcement. 

[The Man in Blue]

"Some would say" is not "the rule says."

The rule explicitly says to ignore the offense of running outside the lane if it does not interfere.  Bud's memo says you must call interference immediately when the throw is made.  Interference is an IMMEDIATE DEAD BALL.  ERGO YOU CANNOT ADMINISTER THE RULE AS WRITTEN.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

If that’s how they want called, fine. My gripe is FED has had ten years to clarify the rule, make it a POE,  but they opted to say nothing. Then he puts out a memo and  blames umpires for lack of enforcement. 

 

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

"Some would say" is not "the rule says."

The rule explicitly says to ignore the offense of running outside the lane if it does not interfere.  Bud's memo says you must call it immediately when the throw is made, ERGO YOU CANNOT ADMINISTER THE RULE AS WRITTEN.

To be truthful, blaming umpires for lack of enforcement would be correct as to our original interp of the rule. No rule knowledge or gonads was rife in my experience. Being sanguine about how they want it called will be interesting. I think I would want some response  from @beerguy55 when I tell him his runners must veer into the lane when the ball is fielded behind them on the same side of the foul line. I'm gonna have fun in scrimmages.

[beerguy55]

On 1/9/2025 at 8:45 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

 

To be truthful, blaming umpires for lack of enforcement would be correct as to our original interp of the rule. No rule knowledge or gonads was rife in my experience. Being sanguine about how they want it called will be interesting. I think I would want some response  from @beerguy55 when I tell him his runners must veer into the lane when the ball is fielded behind them on the same side of the foul line. I'm gonna have fun in scrimmages.

I've said it before and I've said it again, it doesn't matter what you do to this rule, how you rewrite it, how you expand or shrink the running lane, or how you reinterpret it, it is ALWAYS going to be problematic.  You will always have those who call it when they shouldn't, and those who don't when they should.

Just get rid of the rule.

I've never had a problem telling my runners to stay in the lane.  The instinct is to have your catcher plant one in the back of the runner, due to the large number of amateur umpires who want an explicit and overt act of INT/OBS (be it contact with a fielder, with a runner, or a soccer/basketball/hockey player flopping like they got shot)...but even that doesn't always work...you can still hit the runner square in the back, while said runner is on the infield grass, and still have the umpire judge he was in the running lane!

So unless you're going to start applying MLB replay review to RLI, it just doesn't f-ing matter...whatever call is or isn't made is going to be arbitrary.   Better to not have it at all.   We had a full debate here about whether or not Manny Machado interfered with Freddy Freeman's throw between first and second base when Machado clearly moved into the projected path of the throw...and the pro consensus was there was nothing to call there because he didn't actually look at the ball and was just guessing where the throw was doing...so wtf are we worrying about it between home and first?   If the standard on the other bases is whether or not the runner was looking back at the ball to position himself, why isn't it the same between home and first?

[Replacematt]

15 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 If the standard on the other bases is whether or not the runner was looking back at the ball to position himself, why isn't it the same between home and first?

Let me know the next time you see R1 lay a bunt down or swing at a third strike in the dirt.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Let me know the next time you see R1 lay a bunt down or swing at a third strike in the dirt.

This neither answers nor addresses the disparity in the standard.