FED Runners Lane Interference - exits lane opposite throw OR no chance to get the runner in time

[Tog Gee]

Situation:

In the diagram below the red line is the runner's path and the green line is the throw.

Uncaught third strike, the catcher scrambles and takes some time to get on the ball. Ball is recovered at the backstop on the foul side of the first base line. The runner got to first quickly and easily beat the throw, which was firm and on target to an F3 stretching off the foul side of first base. Initially called safe, which was obvious to everyone.

Batter was then runner then called out for RLI (running with the left foot in fair territory)

 

Two questions for the "strict" or "penal" interpretations by officials:

1. Do you still call RLI if the runner is outside the lane on the opposite side that the throw is coming from?
2. Do you call RLI if the throw has no chance of getting the runner out because the batter runner was safe by a mile? (I.E. it took some time for F2 to recover the ball on an uncaught third strike and F2 had no chance to get the batter runner in time.)

 

Edited May 26, 2025 by Tog Gee

[flyingron]

The lane provides "immunity" from interference if the BR stays within it.   Once outside, it's not automatically interference, he has to actually interfere with the throw.    So if in the umpire's opinion there was no play possible (or no throw actually was made), then it isn't interference.

Note a couple of other things you mention.   The runners lane is NOT entirely in foul territory.   Even before the recent rules change, the foul line itself is in the runners lane and it is fair territory.   In 2024, MLB widened the running lane to include the dirt in fair territory adjacent to the traditional running lane.

The runner was also allowed to leave the lane when approaching first if necessary to touch the bag.

 

 

[beerguy55]

Exhibit 4372 to why RLI just needs to be abolished outright.

[Central Cal Umpire]

Based on the description and that diagram, I don't see an out in this scenario. Interference has to begin with physical contact or visual obstruction of the ball. It doesn't start with BR inside or out of the running lane. With F3 stretched out in foul territory and BR running in fair territory, it implies there was no actual interference to then apply the running lane violation. Not mention the runner clearly beats the ball. Where's the interference if the ball hasn't arrived yet? Unless there's some extraneous detail missing.

[jimurrayalterego]

5 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

Situation:

In the diagram below the red line is the runner's path and the green line is the throw.

Uncaught third strike, the catcher scrambles and takes some time to get on the ball. Ball is recovered at the backstop on the foul side of the first base line. The runner got to first quickly and easily beat the throw, which was firm and on target to an F3 stretching off the foul side of first base. Initially called safe, which was obvious to everyone.

Batter was then runner then called out for RLI (running with the left foot in fair territory)

 

Two questions for the "strict" or "penal" interpretations by officials:

1. Do you still call RLI if the runner is outside the lane on the opposite side that the throw is coming from?
2. Do you call RLI if the throw has no chance of getting the runner out because the batter runner was safe by a mile? (I.E. it took some time for F2 to recover the ball on an uncaught third strike and F2 had no chance to get the batter runner in time.)

 

1. No. All codes have interps that do not call RLI if the throw comes from the opposite side of where the runner is violating.

2004 Interps

"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)"

2. In areas where we comply with the FED interp of calling upon the release of the throw it would be called if the runner hadn't reached 1B and the throw was from behind and on the same side.

I agree with @beerguy55. But we would still penalize the runner for intentional interference if he veered, the Machado play notwithstanding☺️

[The Man in Blue]

He's out in Texas and by NFHS's "new [nonsensical] interp."

We don't want the catcher to have to throw the ball at the runner.

[jimurrayalterego]

5 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

He's out in Texas and by NFHS's "new [nonsensical] interp."

We don't want the catcher to have to throw the ball at the runner.

He is not out in Texas. Our rules interpreter reenforced that the throw has to be from behind and on the same side.

[Kevin_K]

As our resident @maven suggests on a regular basis, interference is akin to hinderance. No hinderance means no interference.

[Tog Gee]

17 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

He is not out in Texas. Our rules interpreter reenforced that the throw has to be from behind and on the same side.

What if the runner was out of the lane on the same side as the throw, but the throw could NOT have gotten there in time?

Do you call runner out because of RLI based on principle or do you judge whether the throw had any chance of beating the runner?

 

[maven]

15 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

As our resident @maven suggests on a regular basis, interference is akin to hinderance. No hinderance means no interference.

Alas, it seems that various codes are muddying the waters for RLI, by having diverse and sometimes potentially conflicting criteria for the call. 

I guess I don't fully understand the rationale for doing that. If we want to use RLI like other forms of INT to protect fielders from hindrance, then do that.

If instead we want a rule that requires runners to be in the running lane on any ground ball (or any play at 1B prior to BR's touch), then just call them out for being out of the lane (not a form of INT). How fast would runners change their approach, if that were the rule?

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

What if the runner was out of the lane on the same side as the throw, but the throw could NOT have gotten there in time?

Do you call runner out because of RLI based on principle or do you judge whether the throw had any chance of beating the runner?

 

I think I could rationalize a late throw as not being a putout throw but throw behind the runner if he made a turn. But I don't think Hopkins would agree: 

Excerpt from his May 24, 2024 Memo:

"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!"