NFHS RLI

[JSam21]

On 1/22/2026 at 9:46 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Uh huh.  So how do we prevent catchers from thumping runners?  By requiring them to throw when we know the runner is illegal.  We are telling them, "I know you were trying to be safe by not making that throw, but I have to reward the runner then."  Makes total sense . . . not.

By not requiring that there be a quality throw or requiring that the throw hit the runner. There still needs to be an attempt to make a play in order to have a play that is interfered with. The biggest issue is trying to over simplify the rule and causing these issues. 

Correct.  HOW do "we all know" that?

Your wording makes sense, and I would agree with it, but it is not what either rule says.  I agree with you that the old application would seem to be a really poorly worded of fielding a throw to first base.  However, the current direction from NFHS removes that aspect (we no longer consider what happens at first base).

We understand this by looking at the rule and what they are telling us is protected in the rule. Where would the throw have to originate in order for that runner's position to affect it? In order to protect the throw, we have to have it originate from an area that the runner's position could affect it.  

OBR says "fielding the ball to first base" which makes no sense.

NFHS says "when the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base".  I agree with you there are two separate acts that trigger the required timing of looking at the violation.  We are disagreeing on what those two incidents are though.  I agree, what you are asserting MAKES SENSE.  What is actually written and communicated does not.  What is written states: : (1) when the ball is being fielded, and (2) when the ball is being thrown to first base.  There is no longer any consideration of the fielding of the throw because the play is dead before that occurs.

Think of it like this... when you are "fielding a question" you are receiving a question. Fielding a ball, is receiving the ball. One can field a throw. For some reason you are only looking at fielding as dealing with a batted ball. 
 

 

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, JSam21 said:

By not requiring that there be a quality throw or requiring that the throw hit the runner. There still needs to be an attempt to make a play in order to have a play that is interfered with. The biggest issue is trying to over simplify the rule and causing these issues. 

I agree that is the issue.  The problem came from an oversimplification, which somebody didn't like and tried to arbitrarily correct, which caused overcomplication trying to sort out the mess that they created.

13 hours ago, JSam21 said:

We understand this by looking at the rule and what they are telling us is protected in the rule. Where would the throw have to originate in order for that runner's position to affect it? In order to protect the throw, we have to have it originate from an area that the runner's position could affect it.

We do?  Really?  Break that down for me, because this is what I see: the problem here is that we CANNOT get to that point or understand this by looking at the rule as written.  WE -- you, me, and veteran umpires -- can have a pretty good idea of what we have always done, but we cannot read the new rule AS WRITTEN and get that out of it.  A brand new umpire sure as hell cannot get that out of the new rule as written.  

13 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Think of it like this... when you are "fielding a question" you are receiving a question. Fielding a ball, is receiving the ball. One can field a throw. For some reason you are only looking at fielding as dealing with a batted ball. 

Not "for some reason" . . . for a very good reason: that is what the rule says. 

First, OBR language is nonsensical in its "while a ball is being fielded to first base."  I would love to know the origin of this verbiage.  Maybe it made sense 100 years ago, but is something "archaic" by our modern use of the language.  Yes, I agree, you can talk about fielding a throw to first base, meaning ANY fielder receiving the throw at first base.  (I copped quite awhile back to stumbling on that understanding because of the way a post worded it.)

However the new NFHS language says: ". . . while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base . . . "

It does not say "fielded at first base", "fielding a throw to first base", or anything about where or how it has to happen.  It says there are two moments to consider: the moment the ball is fielded AND the moment it is being thrown to first base.

This is what this all boils down to: written rules must be used as written.  In a better than average world, a new umpire will read the rule book before umpiring.  If a new umpire, with no experience and no previous biases of past iterations, cannot pick up the book and gain a reasonable understanding of the rules, then the rules are useless.

[JSam21]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

However the new NFHS language says: ". . . while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base . . . "

It does not say "fielded at first base", "fielding a throw to first base", or anything about where or how it has to happen.  It says there are two moments to consider: the moment the ball is fielded AND the moment it is being thrown to first base.

This is what this all boils down to: written rules must be used as written.  In a better than average world, a new umpire will read the rule book before umpiring.  If a new umpire, with no experience and no previous biases of past iterations, cannot pick up the book and gain a reasonable understanding of the rules, then the rules are useless.

Because there are two aspects being protected... 1) The throw itself and 2) The fielding of a throw. It is worded that way in order to provide that distinction. 

OBR does not protect the throw at all, only the fielding of the throw. That is why it is worded that way. 

One of the things that I think we need to change is the mindset that EVERYTHING needs to be covered in the rule book. This whole situation could easily be taken care of with two case plays being added... Then again, people will argue that those case plays don't matter... as seen with the addition of 8.4.2 Situation Y being added in 2025 and people still ignoring the ruling given in that Case Play. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

I'll touch on the places we are agreeing: I agree with you that the rulebook should not cover "everything."  That is is the point that I am driving at.  In an attempt to "cover everything", they broke this thing far worse than it was ever broke in the first place.  It is a simple fix, but I put my money on any "fixes" making it worse.

On the places we disagree, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I will implore you this, then I will leave it alone: Stop reading the wording as JSam, the experienced college umpire.  Read it as 22-year old Navy Shirt Nick who just paid his $75 and is stressing over his first test.  Read it as 42-year old All Sport Alex who is adding his 6th sport, baseball, to his license because his buddies told him he can work 10 games in a day at an 8u tournament (its easy money, they said), not because he cares about the game.

The wording is broken.  The more we bicker over it, the more we prove it.  If they want what you say (and I agree it is the right thing, but not what they are telling us), it is an easy fix.  Until then, they are going to get what they say in the rule and in Hopkins' memo.  Because it is a safety issue, the ball is immediately dead if the runner is out of the lane when the ball is being fielded.     

If you want a rule fixed, call it they way it is worded.

[JSam21]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'll touch on the places we are agreeing: I agree with you that the rulebook should not cover "everything."  That is is the point that I am driving at.  In an attempt to "cover everything", they broke this thing far worse than it was ever broke in the first place.  It is a simple fix, but I put my money on any "fixes" making it worse.

On the places we disagree, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I will implore you this, then I will leave it alone: Stop reading the wording as JSam, the experienced college umpire.  Read it as 22-year old Navy Shirt Nick who just paid his $75 and is stressing over his first test.  Read it as 42-year old All Sport Alex who is adding his 6th sport, baseball, to his license because his buddies told him he can work 10 games in a day at an 8u tournament (its easy money, they said), not because he cares about the game.

The wording is broken.  The more we bicker over it, the more we prove it.  If they want what you say (and I agree it is the right thing, but not what they are telling us), it is an easy fix.  Until then, they are going to get what they say in the rule and in Hopkins' memo.  Because it is a safety issue, the ball is immediately dead if the runner is out of the lane when the ball is being fielded.     

If you want a rule fixed, call it they way it is worded.

You keep referring to this memo... can you provide the actual memo? 

I agree it is difficult for new officials. But it would be difficult for new officials to learn, without guidance, regardless how it is written.

 

[Jimurray]

@ManinBlue  https://taso.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Baseball-Memo-Running-Lane-Violation-0592024.pdf       
 

hopkins requires a throw in the memo

[BigBlue4u]

On 1/22/2026 at 7:46 PM, The Man in Blue said:

The fielding of a throw to first base is protected regardless of where it originates from. The fielding of the throw would still require that there be hinderance by the batter-runner in order to make a call. 

There are two separate aspects being protected by the rule... the throw and the fielding of the throw. 

I don't agree with the first part, I do agree with the second part.  I believe  the intent of the running lane is to cover throws from behind the b/r.  A throw from one of the other infielders which is not behind the runner and is off-line toward the plate and results in a collision between the b/r and 1B is nothing.  If the collision prevents the 1B from making a play, it will be scored as a throwing error.  Right on with the second part.  If there is no hinderance by the b/r or any other play at the time, why would we call interference?  Before getting into a lot of crazy discussions, start by asking yourself, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule?"

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't agree with the first part, I do agree with the second part.  I believe  the intent of the running lane is to cover throws from behind the b/r.  A throw from one of the other infielders which is not behind the runner and is off-line toward the plate and results in a collision between the b/r and 1B is nothing.  If the collision prevents the 1B from making a play, it will be scored as a throwing error.  Right on with the second part.  If there is no hinderance by the b/r or any other play at the time, why would we call interference?  Before getting into a lot of crazy discussions, start by asking yourself, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule?"

Break this down . . . and you will see why the language Hopkins has used AND the language NFHS is now using turn this change into a monumental shift, not a mild adjustment.

YES -- The intent of the running lane was to provide for a clear lane for a throw originating behind the runner.  (Ironic that some people want to let runners do whatever they want once they reach base . . . soap box or another day . . . ).  The conundrum WAS that first base is in fair territory, so requiring the runner to run in foul territory was seen as problematic.

If that was the only thing happening here, I would be inclined to agree with you.  This rule change does not live in a vacuum though, as evidenced by all of the language NFHS has used to try to hide this change.  NFHS has heavily tied this change of RLI interference calls to the addition of the double first-base.  Now, the runner running in foul territory is NO LONGER a competition issue, as they are running to a base in foul territory.

Hopkins sited the safety issue of catchers thumping runners when they are out of the lane because he made that statement before the double first base was adopted.  Besides, how often have you seen that occur?  How often have you seen it result in a concerning injury?  Hopkins leaned HEAVILY on THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.  Hopkins instructed us to KILL the play because it IS A SAFETY ISSUE.  (His requirement of a throw was confusing based on this logic.)

Now read language the NFHS has issued (pre-season guide, NFHS website, POEs, etc.).  They cite the addition of the double-first base, and thus the RLI change, as safety issues to prevent runners from crashing into fielders.  There is no longer ANY reason for a runner to be running outside of the lane, a path that is going to increase the chance of a collision.  This is no longer about providing a fielder behind the runner a path for a safe throw . . . it is about protecting the fielder taking the throw and the runner from collision.  Hence, the mindset of "behind the throw" is no longer valid, and the language of the rule is written so it no longer implies this.

We are no longer looking at that potential collision as a possible interference, we are looking at it as a safety issue.  Think about FPSR -- we no longer care if there was interference, we are penalizing unsafe acts.  The mindset of the game is changing.

[jimurrayalterego]

19 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

"NFHS has heavily tied this change of RLI interference calls to the addition of the double first-base.  "

The memo existed before the requirement to use the double 1B. The interp existed long before the memo in an NFHS Arbiter video. We all were dumfounded back then and went our happily little way calling it normal until Hopkins 2024 memo. 

 

[JSam21]

14 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

A throwI don't agree with the first part, I do agree with the second part.  I believe  the intent of the running lane is to cover throws from behind the b/r.  from one of the other infielders which is not behind the runner and is off-line toward the plate and results in a collision between the b/r and 1B is nothing.  If the collision prevents the 1B from making a play, it will be scored as a throwing error.  Right on with the second part.  If there is no hinderance by the b/r or any other play at the time, why would we call interference?  Before getting into a lot of crazy discussions, start by asking yourself, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule?"

A throw from the short stop that the first baseman could easily field with a slight reach towards home plate... but can't because the batter runner collides with them due to them being outside of the lane prior to their last step to reach the base... that is a runners lane violation.

I'm not talking about protecting the throw, we are talking about protecting the fielding of the throw. The protection of the actual throw itself does require the throw to originate from around the home plate area. 

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/29/2026 at 10:50 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

"NFHS has heavily tied this change of RLI interference calls to the addition of the double first-base.  "

The memo existed before the requirement to use the double 1B. The interp existed long before the memo in an NFHS Arbiter video. We all were dumfounded back then and went our happily little way calling it normal until Hopkins 2024 memo. 

 

 

 

Yes, Hopkins' memo predates this addition.  However, read the NFHS language being put out this year, not the language from Hopkins.  (Yes, tangled, but still different sources.)

This is being buried in the double-first base language with no mention of the RLI application.  

My "read between the lines" PR take: There is dissent coming from inside the house.  Hopkins tried to end-around this before the rulebook language was ready to support it.  His statements unnecessarily made this messy.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

Yes, Hopkins' memo predates this addition.  However, read the NFHS language being put out this year, not the language from Hopkins.  (Yes, tangled, but still different sources.)

This is being buried in the double-first base language with no mention of the RLI application.  

My "read between the lines" PR take: There is dissent coming from inside the house.  Hopkins tried to end-around this before the rulebook language was ready to support it.  His statements unnecessarily made this messy.

What NFHS language? Yes there is dissent from all of us because we, but not all of us, used to call it by OBR and the disappeared FED exception. The "not all of us" didn't even call RLI when it should have been called by the old way. There was one not called in the Texas HS tournament which is a thread here. And, off topic, BTW the Texas tournament OBS call when the runner drew the call has been rationalized as correct. 

[The Man in Blue]

@jimurrayalterego . . . I respect you and enjoy having these conversations.  I admit I am in a salty mood lately, so please set me straight if it is appropriate . . . 

I cannot decide if this is a legitimate question and I should go dig everything up from the pre-season guide, the new language in the book, and the stuff from the NFHS website -- all things I have pointed toward or posted parts of -- or if you are just being Ol' Smitty and not really wanting anything to read.

I don't really care how we, you, I, or the frog in our pocket used to call it.  That is why it is a rule change.  It wasn't changed to challenge us so we find a way to keep doing what we used to do.  It was changed to change what we used to do.  It is a new "way of thinking" with these safety rules.

I owe you a drink either way, my friend.