FED RLI - kill it on the throw?

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, Replacematt said:

That still doesn't address the directive to call it the moment a throw is made.

Hopkins put out a memo in May of 2024. It's somewhere in this thread:

 

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

That still doesn't address the directive to call it the moment a throw is made.

It says "B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him".

[Replacematt]

46 minutes ago, Velho said:

It says "B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him".

I don't think I stuttered.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Hopkins put out a memo in May of 2024. It's somewhere in this thread:

 

If this is what they want, this is the language they need to use.

It addresses the timing of the infraction AND the exception about being on the opposite side of the throw. I think it even provides for the idea that RLI has to originate from the plate area.

The one thing it doesn't do is address the part of the rule that requires actual hindrance. If this is the way they want it, why not redact that part of the rule in 2025 instead of providing half-assed examples?

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

RULING: In (a), as soon as the catcher made a throw to first base, interference is called and B2 is declared out. The quality of the throw is not important.

Ooof. 😤 That’s a really tough one to sell. I mean, I get you don’t want F2’s tossing hatchets 🪓 at fleeing BR’s, but c’mon… now you’re going to have fielders – F2s and F1s and F5s (charging) told / taught just to scoop and fling so as to draw the call. 

Then, there’s nothing relevant to the skill level, or throwability(? I know, it’s not a word) of the fielder. I mean, these are Fed rules, meaning that you’ll have Freshman, at least, using ‘em. Not every 13-14 year old catcher can put pace behind a ≈ 90 ft throw, and put out a LHB’ing like-aged middle infielder or outfielder with the build of a barn swallow… who got a helluva jump out of the box, and has the wheels to beat it out. And while he likely shows that he’d have beat the throw by a full stride, we’re to call him Out based on him not being in the lane alone, despite the F3 not being INT’d with, or worse, the F4 (covering) not being quite to the bag yet?  
And we haven’t even gotten to the part about how this is going to affect the tournament & travel-ball & independent baseball orgs that use NFHS as their rules basis. Not only do we have a “rift between the rules” on what constitutes the RL (dirt path, Fair & Foul valid in OBR; lane starting at 45-ft mark, wholly in Foul territory in NFHS), but now we have a chasm on “when to call it”. 

Same kids are playing the game(s), guys! Same kids! 

[jimurrayalterego]

23 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Ooof. 😤 That’s a really tough one to sell. I mean, I get you don’t want F2’s tossing hatchets 🪓 at fleeing BR’s, but c’mon… now you’re going to have fielders – F2s and F1s and F5s (charging) told / taught just to scoop and fling so as to draw the call. 

 

They can't draw the call if the runner is in the lane. What I have noticed in my neck of the woods, where coaches have been made aware, is batters going right down the foul line, neither foot ever touching completely off the line and legal. While interps allow them to exit the lane to touch 1B they actually don't have to exit as the 4 inches of the foul line coincides with 4 inches of the base and that fair territory is part of the 3 foot plus 4 inch lane.

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

They don’t want the coach to tell the kid to hit the runner but they want the kid to throw in order to call it.

This!!! The contradiction is maddening. 

[MadMax]

29 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

They can't draw the call if the runner is in the lane. What I have noticed in my neck of the woods, where coaches have been made aware, is batters going right down the foul line, neither foot ever touching completely off the line and legal.

Now, see, I can appreciate your insight and perspective on this. Bravo. 

That being what it is, and barring actual contextual coaching (ie. HS Coach coaching within and to the Fed Rules), most kids learn something like this experientially, or from coaches (local, travel, club, academy) who coach more generally, or to OBR standards. 

I’m of the belief that we, the officials (and rules makers, and rules interpreters) have made our own mess. Because, we have fallen short in concisely identifying it and demonstrating it, and umpires have been reluctant (iow. chicken 💩) to call it. 

Are these rules makers getting paid by the word?? FFS, would it kill ya to do a video demonstration, and then issue it conjoined to a POE?? 

[dumbdumb]

but on some of these, if you call it, you get the ole-- here you go again just trying to inject yourself into the game and make the game about you the umpire, not about the game itself, and next thing you know you are scratched by that team.

[johnnyg08]

22 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

but on some of these, if you call it, you get the ole-- here you go again just trying to inject yourself into the game and make the game about you the umpire, not about the game itself, and next thing you know you are scratched by that team.

People pretend that doesn't happen. But it definitely does. 

[jimurrayalterego]

57 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

People pretend that doesn't happen. But it definitely does. 

Nobody pretends. We know it happens. We know of chapters with umpires who are influenced by the threat of losing a game's pay. Would that be your reason to not call it, the effed up FED interp (which we now call in TX), actual RLI, other instances that take gonads such as "stay here" or BI. So @dumbdumb what are you advising? Go with the flow and let the boys play and don't make waves? Are you really in need of game checks?

[dumbdumb]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Nobody pretends. We know it happens. We know of chapters with umpires who are influenced by the threat of losing a game's pay. Would that be your reason to not call it, the effed up FED interp (which we now call in TX), actual RLI, other instances that take gonads such as "stay here" or BI. So @dumbdumb what are you advising? Go with the flow and let the boys play and don't make waves? Are you really in need of game checks?

well, that old guy that went to the school said his group let a coach scratch/blackball/or other terminology used in your area/ one umpire at the beginning of each year if they wanted or during the year. guess what happens when that coach tries to add another due to a bad call during the year. yep, that's right, his old assignor made sure to send back the previously scratched umpire to the very next game, even if he had to make a few adjustments to make that happen.

to answer your question,

you see it, you call it, you explain it, and let the chips fall where they may, or you see what happened, you call what happened, you explain what happened and you enforce what happened.

this, officiating of any sport, has always been sold as an avocation, not a vocation for professional umpires of amateur/and should i add NIL players as a description now too?

hey, then go sign-up for the Horizon League as a basketball official, in the miss a call, get sacked League, unless something else other than a call was in play for that incident. hey, i will guarantee you Roger Ayers is seeing an over $250,000++ W-2 form for his avocation as a hoops official every year.

and just to add @MadMaxinto this. how come we even think about protecting former catcher max/once a catcher always a catcher/the on field GENERAL of players/ from home to first anyway, when we don't protect the same max situations at all the other bases. just ask about that runner, intentionally or not, running in the baseline any whichaway they want to go visit max at his home palace, from third to home, on that throw from left field mainly, but also from third base.

 

 

 

[johnnyg08]

18 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Nobody pretends. We know it happens. We know of chapters with umpires who are influenced by the threat of losing a game's pay. Would that be your reason to not call it, the effed up FED interp (which we now call in TX), actual RLI, other instances that take gonads such as "stay here" or BI. So @dumbdumb what are you advising? Go with the flow and let the boys play and don't make waves? Are you really in need of game checks?

I'm at a point in my career where I'm the person deciding if people lose games or not for calling RLI and I will assure the forum that you'll have a greater chance of losing games for not calling it than from grabbing these. 

[Velho]

@johnnyg08 Is that in general or to the 2025 RLI Interp?

[johnnyg08]

15 hours ago, Velho said:

@johnnyg08 Is that in general or to the 2025 RLI Interp?

The new interp helps...but I would say that in general, my expectation is that we need to grab RLI and it's almost a guarantee that we're leaving some obvious ones out there..probably because we lack the confidence to grab them.