Runners Lane Violation NFHS

[jimurrayalterego]

And to further educate @Kali, I think you and your rules guy missed these 2025 Interps:

"SITUATION 16: With the bases empty, B1 swings and misses strike three which rebounds uncaught off the catcher. The catcher secures the baseball and throws to first from a small distance in front of home plate. B1, in the last 30 feet to first base, is running out of the running lane on (a) the foul side of the running lane, or (b) the fair side of the running lane. RULING: In (a), this is no violation of the running lane rule and the play will be how it plays out. In (b), this is a violation of the running lane rule and B1 will be declared out for interference at the moment the catcher throws to first base. (8-4-1g)

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)"

Disclaimer, I do not like calling it like this. But having seen many instances of umps missing it under the old rule it might make sense to keep it simple.

[The Man in Blue]

But what about the 1921 telegram from Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis to Cy Rigler . . . 

 

Sorry, y'all were having too much fun without me.

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/13/2026 at 5:29 AM, Jimurray said:

On 4/13/2026 at 3:46 AM, noumpere said:

8-4-1-g-1 "This infraction is ignored ... if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw."

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think a lot of folks are missing the issue here.  This rule echos rules in every other baseball rule set and was meant to prevent a batter-runner from interfering with the play to first by restricting them to a specific running lane so that the fielders knew where they should position the throw.  By deleting this line from the rule, it is changed completely so that we are now punishing the batter-runner for not running in the running lane regardless of whether they interfere with the play to first or not.

All right.  Let's put an end to all the speculation, etc., etc., etc.  I got in touch with the NFHS and was told 8-4-1-g-1 (2025 version) was removed by the rules committee because it duplicates 2-21-1-a. The change was overlooked and not entirely corrected before the printing of the 2026 rule book.  Thus, even though 8-4-1-g-1 still appears in the 2026 rule book, it should not be there. So, in judging RLI, if 2-21-1-a does not occur, there is no penalty.

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

By deleting this line from the rule, it is changed completely so that we are now punishing the batter-runner for not running in the running lane regardless of whether they interfere with the play to first or not.

All right.  Let's put an end to all the speculation, etc., etc., etc. I got in touch with the NFHS and was told 8-4-1-g-1 (2025 version) was removed by the rules committee because it duplicates 2-21-1-a. The change was overlooked and not entirely corrected before the printing of the 2026 rule book.  Thus, even though it still appears in the 2026 rule book, it should not be there. So, if 2-21-1-a does not occur in judging a possible RLI situation, there is no penalty.

[BigBlue4u]

1 minute ago, BigBlue4u said:

All right.  Let's put an end to all the speculation, etc., etc., etc. I got in touch with the NFHS and was told 8-4-1-g-1 (2025 version) was removed by the rules committee because it duplicates 2-21-1-a. The change was overlooked and not entirely corrected before the printing of the 2026 rule book.  Thus, even though it still appears in the 2026 rule book, it should not be there. So, if 2-21-1-a does not occur in judging a possible RLI situation, there is no penalty.

This was inadvertently duplicated because I wasn't sure the first post was printed.

[jimurrayalterego]

43 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

All right.  Let's put an end to all the speculation, etc., etc., etc. I got in touch with the NFHS and was told 8-4-1-g-1 (2025 version) was removed by the rules committee because it duplicates 2-21-1-a. The change was overlooked and not entirely corrected before the printing of the 2026 rule book.  Thus, even though it still appears in the 2026 rule book, it should not be there. So, if 2-21-1-a does not occur in judging a possible RLI situation, there is no penalty.

Sounds like the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. But you got in touch with Hopkins? The NFHS people you talked to told you 2025 NFHS interps 16 and 18 no longer apply?

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

All right.  Let's put an end to all the speculation, etc., etc., etc. I got in touch with the NFHS and was told 8-4-1-g-1 (2025 version) was removed by the rules committee because it duplicates 2-21-1-a. The change was overlooked and not entirely corrected before the printing of the 2026 rule book.  Thus, even though it still appears in the 2026 rule book, it should not be there. So, if 2-21-1-a does not occur in judging a possible RLI situation, there is no penalty.

8-4-1-g-1 was not removed. Only the phrase ""This infraction is ignored ... if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw." was removed. The B-R can still deviate to avoid a fielder making a play. By the rule. Unless your "in touch with NFHS" contact said that was supposed to be removed also. Whoever you talked to does not have a clue what's in the book or you did not understand what he told you. But it looks like we have an undercurrent of disagreement within NFHS and among certain state associations about calling this the NFHS way. While I don't like it I have seen more and better enforcement of RLI, yes the batter was put out in some cases, but it generates more compliance with the rule. MLB expanded the lane and still gets runners drifting out to impede the throw and impede F3. It's a win win for the runner. He is a dead duck. What does he have to lose except still being called out. Exception being a squeeze where R3 might have to return. 

[Kali]

You guys keep talking about a throw from behind the runner, and I get that the intent of these changes was to get the umpire to call the play at the time of the throw and not worry about whether there is actual interference or not.  They don't want coaches telling their catchers they have to peg the BR in the back to get the call.  All that is understood.  But that's not my concern here.

What about plays where the throw doesn't come from behind the runner?  What about a throw from the short stop?  Or a throw from the right fielder?  The way this rule is written right now, if that runner doesn't run in the running lane, we're suposed to call them out.  That's what needs to be cleared up.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Kali said:

You guys keep talking about a throw from behind the runner, and I get that the intent of these changes was to get the umpire to call the play at the time of the throw and not worry about whether there is actual interference or not.  They don't want coaches telling their catchers they have to peg the BR in the back to get the call.  All that is understood.  But that's not my concern here.

What about plays where the throw doesn't come from behind the runner?  What about a throw from the short stop?  Or a throw from the right fielder?  The way this rule is written right now, if that runner doesn't run in the running lane, we're suposed to call them out.  That's what needs to be cleared up.

I think you can infer a throw from behind from the 2025 Sit 18 wording. We also have had that clarified from our state rule interpreter. I did some looking in an old BRD and Carl, RIP, has a circa 2010 quote from Hopkins: "....when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him." Interestingly Carl also has an OBR cite from Fitzpatrick circa 2001 that "the ball need not come from behind." But the OBR wording would require out of the lane and interfering with F3 taking the throw. You could concoct an unlikely scenario where this might happen with maybe a throw from F5. I don't know if Fitzpatrick's cite is still held by MLB.

Hopkins quote lead me to discover this 2010 interp:

'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"

[The Man in Blue]

I'm dying here, I'm dying!

 

[Kali]

You can infere all you want but this rule has never been solely about a throw from near home plate.  In Fed and MLB, this rule covers throws from anyplace on the field.  It is a rare call but you can see calls on a throw from 3rd base or short that pulls the 1st baseman forward toward home and the runner runs into the glove or between the ball and the glove and prevents the catch.  These become RLI because there is actual interference.  But we are now saying that there doesn't have to be actual interference to call the runner out.

So once again I say we have a real problem here.  An ordinary play with a grounder to the 3rd baseman who throws to 1st too late to retire the runner, becomes an out if the runner runs outside of the running lane.  If we don't call it that way and a coach protests, we lose the protest.

[jimurrayalterego]

53 minutes ago, Kali said:

You can infere all you want but this rule has never been solely about a throw from near home plate.  In Fed and MLB, this rule covers throws from anyplace on the field.  It is a rare call but you can see calls on a throw from 3rd base or short that pulls the 1st baseman forward toward home and the runner runs into the glove or between the ball and the glove and prevents the catch.  These become RLI because there is actual interference.  But we are now saying that there doesn't have to be actual interference to call the runner out.

So once again I say we have a real problem here.  An ordinary play with a grounder to the 3rd baseman who throws to 1st too late to retire the runner, becomes an out if the runner runs outside of the running lane.  If we don't call it that way and a coach protests, we lose the protest.

It's been (mostly) called that way for 2 years in my neck of the woods with no complaints. I'll have to use an Evan's quote to address how you want it called. "That's not a practical way to umpire." I would suggest not calling it your way until you get a protest.