FED RLI - kill it on the throw?

[Tog Gee]

NFHS seems clear about killing it as soon as the throw is made now (if the runner is outside the lane on the same side as the throw).

What are folks doing in games? It seems some are still waiting, looking for actual interference or to see if the out was made (then they assume no INT.)

 

 

SITUATION 18: With R3 on third and R2 on second and one out, B4 hits a small ground ball which dies in front of home plate. R3, getting a good jump on the pitch, slides and touches home plate just as the catcher is picking up the baseball. R2 has not yet touched third when the catcher throws to first base, beating B4 to first. B4, while running to first, is out of the running lane as B4 nears first base.

RULING: This is running-lane interference by B4. When the catcher makes the throw to first, interference is declared at the moment the throw is made, and B4 is out. Since the interference is at the time of the throw, R3’s score counts as he had touched home before the throw. R2 is returned to second base.

COMMENT: The running-lane rule exists for several reasons. One, to keep the offense from making it difficult, if not impossible, for a throw to first from somewhere behind the runner, to be made; thus, providing the offense an unearned hit. The second reason, and a very important one, is safety. Coaches will soon learn that if interference is not called when the throw is made, and the call is delayed until the outcome of the play at first is known, then coaches will instruct catchers to throw and hit the batter-runner is ensure the call is made and that other runners do not get to advance during the play. Throwing at runners is a tactic not to be employed in the high school game. (8-4-1g)

[BLWizzRanger]

We have been directed to see actual interference with the catch and/or throw.  Something about not calling something before we see it and keeping coaches in the game.  

[Tog Gee]

Just now, BLWizzRanger said:

We have been directed

By your state?

[BLWizzRanger]

4 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

By your state?

Local board.

[Velho]

1 minute ago, BLWizzRanger said:

6 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

By your state?

Local board.

It does say "Federation" right on the tin.  

[Tog Gee]

16 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Something about not calling something before we see it and keeping coaches in the game.

If the throw does not result in an out, do you call it at that point? Or you need to see definitive interference?

[Richvee]

 8-4-1g (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

When that gets removed from the rule book, I'll change the way I call it. 

[jimurrayalterego]

18 minutes ago, Richvee said:

 8-4-1g (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

When that gets removed from the rule book, I'll change the way I call it. 

Their take, which TASO, in Texas, now agrees with, is the act requires the fielder to adjust his throw to avoid the runner. 

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Their take, which TASO, in Texas, now agrees with, is the act requires the fielder to adjust his throw to avoid the runner. 

That's  stretch, but if everyone is on board, and it's being called consistently, so be it. 

I've brought situation 18 up with numerous umpires in my area, asked them about it, asked the power that be in my chapter, read them the interp, and all I've got in return was.....

I'll call it...If everybody is on board. I can't be the only one calling it. 

[jimurrayalterego]

5 minutes ago, Richvee said:

That's  stretch, but if everyone is on board, and it's being called consistently, so be it. 

I've brought situation 18 up with numerous umpires in my area, asked them about it, asked the power that be in my chapter, read them the interp, and all I've got in return was.....

I'll call it...If everybody is on board. I can't be the only one calling it. 

It is a stretch. I don’t agree with it or the rationale behind it. 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. But TASO made it clear at the coaches meeting and I haven’t heard of any issues. 

[BLWizzRanger]

1 hour ago, Tog Gee said:

If the throw does not result in an out, do you call it at that point? Or you need to see definitive interference?

definitive interference based on umpire judgement.

I think everyone has spoken to this before, but, my board is trying to alleviate the potential conflict with the HC of calling out a BR on a throw that a) does not have interference b) other baserunning activities that would have to be returned due to it, a scored run per se.

If you have it, pick up the dirty side of the dirty stick - nothing you can do but apply the rule. If you don't, don't pick up the stick. 

And, as others have pointed out, the rule book conflicts directly with POEs that the NFHS put out.  We are opting to use the rulebook that everyone should have read vice the POEs that are hidden on a web site somewhere.

[BLWizzRanger]

23 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

It is a stretch. I don’t agree with it or the rationale behind it. 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. But TASO made it clear at the coaches meeting and I haven’t heard of any issues. 

Ok, so this is going off topic... how is telling a player to hit the runner different than a coach telling a pitcher to hit a batter?  I don't see one.  But, if you overhear the coach telling the player to hit the runner (you usually wouldn't hear the instruction to hit the batter), what do you have ?  A restriction? just a warning?  Because in my scenario, after the catcher doesn't throw the ball or wildly throws it due to the runner, and the coach comes out and says "Just hit him in the back next time to get the call," is this just a mild unsportsmanlike action that deems it a warning or is a harsher penalty needed?

[MAUmpire]

6 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Ok, so this is going off topic... how is telling a player to hit the runner different than a coach telling a pitcher to hit a batter? 

Honestly, this is a really good point that I have not considered before. I think the distinction is that the BR isn't supposed to be inside the foul line when running to first, but has to be in the batter's box when he gets intentionally hit by a pitch. This feels of a piece with encouraging (or not discouraging) R1 making contact with an unprotected fielder in front of second base on a double play with a legal slide. 

I totally see your safety argument but I'm perfectly happy to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. I can't imagine anyone else on the field would expect a reaction to this coaching, so this would be a hot stove I would not want to touch.

[Replacematt]

Let me think about this for a moment. Okay, done. I gave it about as much thought as FED does in writing their interpretations.

POE: BR out of lane + throw = RLI. Correct?
Rule: BR out of lane + throw + hindrance of throw or fielder = RLI. Correct?

So, under the POE, an RH BR with U3K that kicks off to the 1B side, with F3 setting up in foul territory and F2 retrieving the ball in foul territory, is guilty of RLI if they are in fair territory past the 45' line at the time of throw. Correct?

 

[jimurrayalterego]

16 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Let me think about this for a moment. Okay, done. I gave it about as much thought as FED does in writing their interpretations.

POE: BR out of lane + throw = RLI. Correct?
Rule: BR out of lane + throw + hindrance of throw or fielder = RLI. Correct?

So, under the POE, an RH BR with U3K that kicks off to the 1B side, with F3 setting up in foul territory and F2 retrieving the ball in foul territory, is guilty of RLI if they are in fair territory past the 45' line at the time of throw. Correct?

 

There is/are some interps/caseplays that do not call RLI if the violation is on the opposite side of the throw.

edited to add at least one:

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)

[Replacematt]

12 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

There is/are some interps/caseplays that do not call RLI if the violation is on the opposite side of the throw.

edited to add at least one:

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)

Yeah, but looking at the Situation 18 one above (where BR's location is unspecified) and using the language, we can't know if the BR is on the other side of the throw since the throw's trajectory occurs AFTER the RLI.

If, indeed, the time of interference is the time of the throw, then we have to assume that these new interpretations supersede the old ones.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

10 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Yeah, but looking at the Situation 18 one above (where BR's location is unspecified) and using the language, we can't know if the BR is on the other side of the throw since the throw's trajectory occurs AFTER the RLI.

If, indeed, the time of interference is the time of the throw, then we have to assume that these new interpretations supersede the old ones.

 

Texas has published it's own interps. They might have gotten them from NFHS but the opposite side interp been a widely held interp for all the codes. My bold:

1). Running Lane Interference: There have been a few questions on the Running Lane Rule, so let’s review the basics of the rule. For the rule to be called, these conditions must be in place: 
a) the batter-runner, while running to first base during the last half of the distance to first, is outside of the running lane (at least one foot is outside the lane and not on the line); 
b) is outside of the running lane on the side of the lane from which the throw is made (a throw must be made; the quality of the throw is not important);    
c) the throw is made from an area “behind” the runner (a third baseman in a normal fielding position or throws from short or second would not be considered behind the runner on normal infield plays). While many of us would like a firm “black and white” diagram or definition of “behind the runner,” it is left to umpire judgment. Remember, one aspect of the rule is to not allow a batter-runner to gain an unfair advantage while advancing to first by running in a manner such that there is not a throwing lane to the first for the fielder.
Important aspects of the rule: 

Interference occurs at the moment of the throw. When the above conditions are met, at the time of the throw interference is called – the batter-runner is out and other runner(s) are returned to their base(s) occupied at the time of the throw.

The running lane interference is not possible on throws made from first, etc., to home. The batter-runner on a throw to home, cannot be called out for running lane violation. He might interfere with the throw in the manner in which other runners can interfere with a throw, but not by out of the running lane.

Please remember that first and foremost for high school, this is a safety rule. If this rule is not enforced, then coaches will understand the only way to get the batter-runner out and not have another runner advance on the play is to have the catcher drill the batter-runner with a throw; not what is wanted in high school.

[jimurrayalterego]

16 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

.

If, indeed, the time of interference is the time of the throw, then we have to assume that these new interpretations supersede the old ones.

 

Calling RLI at the time of the throw is not new to NFHS. I noticed it on their old arbiter site some years ago and we had a thread about it. What's new is NFHS is reiterating it and some outfits are now agreeing to call it the NFHS way.

[Replacematt]

25 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Calling RLI at the time of the throw is not new to NFHS. I noticed it on their old arbiter site some years ago and we had a thread about it. What's new is NFHS is reiterating it and some outfits are now agreeing to call it the NFHS way.

Do you have any links to said thread (or even better, the FED documents saying such?) I find no such thing, but plenty of interpretations that indicate to wait until actual hindrance occurs.

[Velho]

17 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Do you have any links to said thread (or even better, the FED documents saying such?) I find no such thing, but plenty of interpretations that indicate to wait until actual hindrance occurs.

Situation 17 in below. Text added below as well for ease.

Bottom line from the Interp:

- BR outside the lane, INT once throw is made. Period.

- No throw made, no INT. (Editorial: Defense is supposed trust they will get the call, so throw it)

 

SITUATION 17: The catcher is attempting to throw out B2 on a grounded bunt that went just a few feet into fair ground. B2 is running in fair ground and is 30 feet from first base and outside the running lane. The catcher (a) makes a throw to first base but it sails high over the first baseman's head, or (b) hesitates and does not throw to first. 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. In (b), no interference can be called, even though B2 is running out of the running lane, since a throw was not made to first base. (8-4-1g)

 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

48 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Do you have any links to said thread (or even better, the FED documents saying such?) I find no such thing, but plenty of interpretations that indicate to wait until actual hindrance occurs.

I questioned the arbiter videos from back in 2015. Screenshots have batter out of lane. Throw put runner out but FED captions say RLI should have been called.

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Situation 17 in below. Text added below as well for ease.

Bottom line from the Interp:

- BR outside the lane, INT once throw is made. Period.

- No throw made, no INT. (Editorial: Defense is supposed trust they will get the call, so throw it)

 

SITUATION 17: The catcher is attempting to throw out B2 on a grounded bunt that went just a few feet into fair ground. B2 is running in fair ground and is 30 feet from first base and outside the running lane. The catcher (a) makes a throw to first base but it sails high over the first baseman's head, or (b) hesitates and does not throw to first. 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. In (b), no interference can be called, even though B2 is running out of the running lane, since a throw was not made to first base. (8-4-1g)

 

 

Yeah, but the point in question is if this is something that had been stated before this season. 
 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I questioned the arbiter videos from back in 2015. Screenshots have batter out of lane. Throw put runner out but FED captions say RLI should have been called.

 

It seems that it's possible that the video you linked to was non-canonical (or misworded,) based on the conversation. 

All I know is that the declaration in this year's POE and interpretations is mutually exclusive with how we have been directed to adjudge this infraction in every extant (to me) interpretation prior to this year, with the exception of this video you shared.

[Velho]

14 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Yeah, but the point in question is if this is something that had been stated before this season. 
 

From that linked thread

2010 Interps:

"SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: 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. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g"

 

[Replacematt]

30 minutes ago, Velho said:

From that linked thread

2010 Interps:

 

"SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: 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. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g"

 

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