Runner Lane Interference and the 2025 Interpretation

[johnnyg08]

How are the runner lane interference calls going this with the new interpretation around calling it on the release of the throw?

[Richvee]

What interpretation?  Never seen it. 😁

Seriously. If I Called it would be the first time in my area. Pre season, I talked with at least a dozen, if not more of most of the best High school umpires I work with, (including my chapter rules interpreter) and no one was willing to call this as written, until the rule is rewritten. Until “this violation is ignored….” part of the rule disappears from the FED rulebook, I think we have a fair case not to follow the interp. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, Richvee said:

What interpretation?  Never seen it. 😁

Seriously. If I Called it would be the first time in my area. Pre season, I talked with at least a dozen, if not more of most of the best High school umpires I work with, (including my chapter rules interpreter) and no one was willing to call this as written, until the rule is rewritten. Until “this violation is ignored….” part of the rule disappears from the FED rulebook, I think we have a fair case not to follow the interp. 

I have evidence that you and I agreed not to recall the original interp circa some years ago😉 But Texas did swing whole hog with the 2024 memo and I'm not aware of much controversy with the change.

[johnnyg08]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

Pre season, I talked with at least a dozen, if not more of most of the best High school umpires I work with, (including my chapter rules interpreter) and no one was willing to call this as written, until the rule is rewritten.

It's so interesting that some will blatantly ignore the interps which tell us how to call & interpret plays...yet hang on to the same interps for other plays. It's hard to have it both ways. Umpiring is hard enough than to say..."I'm not calling it that way" Yes...they should remove that part of the rule about ignoring....but if the interp changes it to the release...I equate it to runner interference on a batted ball. Since it's dead the moment of the hinderance, what occurred after the fact, didn't really occur. 

[Tog Gee]

Yes RLI is a huge mess right now. There's language/rule/POE confusion and THEN interpretation and adoption issues which means RLI calls are all over the place, even amongst different officials within the same league/locality.

Killing it on the throw doesn't increase player safety anyway.

 

[johnnyg08]

23 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

Yes RLI is a huge mess right now. There's language/rule/POE confusion and THEN interpretation and adoption issues which means RLI calls are all over the place, even amongst different officials within the same league/locality.

Killing it on the throw doesn't increase player safety anyway.

Just think if we simply followed the published interp from the national governing body how consistent we could be? 

As for safety...how do you figure? Risking hitting a batter runner in the neck, head, or back with a baseball seems like it could be pretty dangerous. We know that it's being coached to dot the batter runner to get the call so it does make sense to eliminate what happens after the throw. 

Think about it...if we all followed the published interpretation, there would be no confusion. And if there was confusion...simply point to the interpretation. 

Let's say we have a coach who actually researches this stuff. They know the new interpretation....they approach you about you passing on an RLI call because the throw retired the runner. How do you back yourself out of that corner? I realize that most states don't allow protests....but why is it that we ignore a published interpretation because we don't like it? 

If you really don't like the rule...enforce it. That's the best way to get rid of a dumb rule. 

Now...what they really should address is the Time of Interference enforcement on these plays. 

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I have evidence that you and I agreed not to recall the original interp circa some years ago😉 But Texas did swing whole hog with the 2024 memo and I'm not aware of much controversy with the change.

I had full intention of calling this by the rule, until speaking with others I would be working and in some cases, answer to. I wasn't about to be out on that island alone. 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

As for safety...how do you figure?

it still requires  throw to call it. The interp doesn't change this.

 

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Let's say we have a coach who actually researches this stuff. They know the new interpretation....they approach you about you passing on an RLI call because the throw retired the runner. How do you back yourself out of that corner? I realize that most states don't allow protests....but why is it that we ignore a published interpretation because we don't like it? 

I can point to the rulebook and say the infraction is ignored because it did not interfere with the fielder or the throw. 8-4-g(1).

Conversely, what if the coach knows 8-4-g(1) and I call RLV and send his R3 back to 3B? How do I back out of that one? 

[johnnyg08]

23 minutes ago, Richvee said:

it still requires  throw to call it. The interp doesn't change this.

I think it changes how it could be coached. 

Now they could coach that you have to throw it and it could be ten feet over F3's head, versus "the umpire last week said that if it hit him in the back you would've gotten the call" 

 

[Richvee]

34 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I think it changes how it could be coached. 

Now they could coach that you have to throw it and it could be ten feet over F3's head, versus "the umpire last week said that if it hit him in the back you would've gotten the call" 

 

It does take the judgement of "Did the runner hinder the throw" out of the equation. That's a good thing. 

one step forward (judgement of throw eliminated)

two steps back. (1)Call it time of throw regardless of outcome, (2) return runners TOI

[johnnyg08]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

two steps back. (1)Call it time of throw regardless of outcome, (2) return runners TOI

I don't understand why the FED is so scared of Time of Pitch...there's real no judgment involved with TOP. There's a fair amount of judgement as to the runner's location at TOI. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't understand why the FED is so scared of Time of Pitch...there's real no judgment involved with TOP. There's a fair amount of judgement as to the runner's location at TOI. 

They would have to add an intervening play interp to go with TOP. 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, jimurrayalterego said:

They would have to add an intervening play interp to go with TOP. 

Gladly. As it stands today...aside from the out....in many cases there's no reason to not interfere. With a TOI enforcement runners could still legally advance. 

[Richvee]

40 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

They would have to add an intervening play interp to go with TOP. 

Yes they would...God forbid they align with other codes. 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

....but why is it that we ignore a published interpretation because we don't like it? 

 I agree with everything you said, 1000%.  But . . . 

 

Interpretations should help teach us how to apply the rules.  They should not be used to replace the rules.  An umpire wanting to come to the game should not need to learn the rule book . . . and then find three other cryptic sources on how the game should be called.  Either an organization wants to equip people to be able to umpire properly, or they don't.

 

 

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

As for safety...how do you figure?

If the ball stops in flight and drops to the ground because you called "TIME!", I am going to be damned impressed.

Maybe that is the secret to calling "DEAD BALL!" instead?  😋