RLV

You are going to have an unhappy coach however you rule. Sometimes you just have to let them play.

The runner was not where he was supposed to be because he did what he needed to do in avoiding F3. I would tend to not call RLV and deal with the defensive coach especially if the defense boots the play.

I have nothing. The runner cleared to allow the F3 to make the catch. Then he made a straight run to the bag so he established a new baseline. The DM is going to get a very short audience.

First, B/R avoided the fielder has he is required. Second, F3 booted the catch creating the situation that followed. Third, B/R now has new basepath.

Interference at this point needs to be intentional. I've got nothing.

I concur with no violation. However, I believe some of the FED "suits" might disagree.

I have heard at least one interpretation to the effect that IF there is a throw from behind the B/R, and IF the B/R is out of the lane, then a RLV is presumed to have occurred regardless of other considerations.

IMO, not only does this make no sense, it is contrary to the rule.

From the description in the OP, I would have a hard time supporting any call of a RLV....sounds to me as if the runner did all he could and in the end was only doing what he was supposed to do.....

I've got nothing.....play on....and Like MST says the DM gets a very short audience if he wants to argue after F3 boots the play...

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I concur with no violation. However, I believe some of the FED "suits" might disagree.

I have heard at least one interpretation to the effect that IF there is a throw from behind the B/R, and IF the B/R is out of the lane, then a RLV is presumed to have occurred regardless of other considerations.

IMO, not only does this make no sense, it is contrary to the rule.

You make a point about Fed rules on interfereing with the throw not the catch as in other codes, however because he had to alter his path for the play I would let it go unless intentional.

All codes (even FED) specifically permit the B/R to run outside the lane to avoid a fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

All codes also say that the act of running outside the lane must cause actual interference for there to be a RLV. This is where FED screwed up.

They wanted to clarify that the throw did not have to hit the runner for there to be a violation (like we didn't know that already), but it came out as removing umpire judgment with respect to the quality of the throw, i.e., whether or not the B/R caused any interference.

That would fall in the LCD portion of Fed rules. Fed looks at from the aspect of being out of the lane as being interference on the fielder behind him, everyone else looks at it as interference with F3 recieving the ball. Of course you know this, but it is a very big difference.

quote:

LCD portion of Fed rules

What's LCD?

OP
I'd have to ring him up.

I think the "boot" and sense of fair play skews how you'd "wanna" call it.

I'll admit though, my first inclination was similar. Establishes new running lane flashed through my mind also. But this needs to be reserved strictly for when avoiding a tag.

The rule is clear and int. should be the call, IMO.

Sorry about your luck there BR, hit it further next time..

Consider same scenario with F3 making a great diving one hop scoop.
Momentum carries him off towards the DO.
He rolls over, makes a great throw from his hind cheeks and hits the runner No reason to punish D here, I don't think the OP either.

Happy Holidays everbody.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

quote:

LCD portion of Fed rules

What's LCD?

OP
I'd have to ring him up.

I think the "boot" and sense of fair play skews how you'd "wanna" call it.

I'll admit though, my first inclination was similar. Establishes new running lane flashed through my mind also. But this needs to be reserved strictly for when avoiding a tag.

The rule is clear and int. should be the call, IMO.

Sorry about your luck there BR, hit it further next time..

Consider same scenario with F3 making a great diving one hop scoop.
Momentum carries him off towards the DO.
He rolls over, makes a great throw from his hind cheeks and hits the runner No reason to punish D here, I don't think the OP either.

Happy Holidays everbody.

6.05(k) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is
being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or
inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing
interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is
dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball ;

The part highlighted allows the BR to leave the lane to avoid the fielder. So, if the defense causes him to leave the lane like the OP or your new proposed scenario, INT is not the call. Tough break for the defense. Learn to field the ball outside the lane.

I didn't actually check the book but my thought process was you can't require him to avoid the fielder, thus leaving the lane, then require him to be in the lane for the throw. Evidently Fed thought the same thing.
LCD is lowest common denominator. As many know I have become the defender of FED rules on many of the boards. Many complain about arbutary and capricious rules in HS. Fed seems to write rules in four areas, sportsmanship, participation, safety and LCD.
Sportsmanship covers their tougher obstruction rule and always awarding a base for any obstruction. There are others but this the best example.
Safety covers MC,both offensive and defensive, helmet rules and protector for pitcher warming in live ball. Again there are others like bat restrictions but these come to mind.
Participation are CRs and DHs. Probably others but nothing is popping in my head.
LCD are the ones that are complained about. The RLV, odd pitching rules and the appeal rules are what pop out for me. They are written to stupid proof the rules for either the umpires, coaches or players. They used to have the no appeal rule, umpire just called outs with no appeal, and strange pitching restrictions that were unlike any other level of ball. Luckily they have done away with those but they were really LCD rules.

B/R was doing his job. Defense screwed up the play. The intent of the rule is not to penalize the offense for a screw up by the defense. I agree and would not penalize B/R in this play.

BR never entered the RL, the rule allows him to leave it.

Chopper in front of the plate, BR sides steps F2 towards fair ground, you saying he'd never have to enter the RL, since he did what he was required by giving the D room?

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
Chopper in front of the plate, BR sides steps F2 towards fair ground, you saying he'd never have to enter the RL, since he did what he was required by giving the D room?

Running lane doesn't start until 45' down the line. If he can't find a way to get back where he's supposed to be (in your situation), then he deserves the INT call.

In the OP, the whole thing takes place around the 40' area. The batter has to allow the protected fielder to play the ball.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
BR never entered the RL, the rule allows him to leave it.

Chopper in front of the plate, BR sides steps F2 towards fair ground, you saying he'd never have to enter the RL, since he did what he was required by giving the D room?

The rule says the infraction is ignored (FED) or the B/R may run outside the lane (other codes) if it is to avoid a fielder fielding the ball. No code requires the B/R to be in the lane to begin with. If the B/R was outside the lane legally, INT would have to be intentional.

I discussed this earlier today with a two MiLB umpires I work with from time to time. I was relieved that they both said that they would not penalize the B/R for avoiding the fielder, as he is required, unless the INT was intentional.

I agree with Dash that in FED as well there is no interference here.

That, of course, does not necessarily stop someone from caling it. Different experiences often result in different calls.

except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball ;

Neither situation has the BR running outside the lane to avoid the fielder fielding the ball.

The OP has BR giving plenty of room prior to reaching the RL. I'm still of the opinion that the BR did what he was supposed too, but this gives him no free pass concerning the RL. With 40+' to re-enter I would hold BR to it.

Second scenario, W/80+' BR would absolutely have to enter the RL or risk the Int. call. Other wise we may never see another out at 1B. Bunt the ball sidestep F2 and line yourself up with the throwing line. Take one for the team..go ahead, but all it'll get ya on my field is a lump and an out..with no sac. as all runners, if any, are going back.

I envision the rule to mean BR is in the RL or can not enter the RL due to the protected fielder needing the space.

I'd be hard pressed to picture a play in which all 3 events take place, i.e. D fielding, BR avoiding and a throw.

High chopper off the plate right on the foul line fielded about 70' from HP, might very well allow the BR to avoid and possibly be hit by a throw while still outside, but seems pretty rare.

My ump buddies all felt to a man Int. would be the right call for the OP. I still agree.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
My ump buddies all felt to a man Int. would be the right call for the OP. I still agree.

Don't know your ump buddies, all I can tell you is how the D-1, MiLB and varisty umpire that I 've chatted with would call this.

And on this board alone, we have heard from umpires with D-1, MiLB and Varsity experience agree with them.

Absent some sign of intent, there's nothing to call.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
My ump buddies all felt to a man Int. would be the right call for the OP. I still agree.

Don't know your ump buddies, all I can tell you is how the D-1, MiLB and varisty umpire that I 've chatted with would call this.

And on this board alone, we have heard from umpires with D-1, MiLB and Varsity experience agree with them.

Absent some sign of intent, there's nothing to call.

My buddies are all that (minus MiLB) and a bowl a cherries too.

It's the price we pay for lack of uniform education and training at the high school level. However, the D-1 guys, if they attend the mandatory clinics required for post season work, should know better.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
Bunt the ball sidestep F2 and line yourself up with the throwing line. Take one for the team..

That would be intentional interference.

Good luck, Dash.

Take us through the D-1 mandated training for this scenario, step by step mechanics of the PU.

Let's break down how the PU is going to avert his attention from; fair foul, catch no catch, detached equipment, to determine if the BR was forced, required to, run outside the RL to allow the D to field the batted ball.

Bunted ball, 12' up the 1B line, BR and F2 tangle 5' up the line "that's nothing" is the call. Are you insinutating that at that point PU is going to make a judgement as to whether the BR was forced to vacate the RL, thats 40' away?

Dash, "that would be intentional?"

All RLV's are intentional.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

All RLV's are intentional.

Not so, and intent is not required for a RLV.

You are correct on the mechanics. PU has fair/foul, catch/no-catch, possible dead ball. When the ball gets away, PU will follow it as far as the play will allow (which won't be very far if there is an R3). Either ump can call a RLV or INT.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

All RLV's are intentional.

Ignorance of the rule (which is probably 90% or more violations) is not intentional and still is RLV.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:


All RLV's are intentional.

That's debatable, and an argument can be made on both sides, but it isn't relevant since this isn't RLV.

I have nothing. No Int.