Base Line to First Base

[bmakj]

Then if I am a coach, I am teaching my C to throw THROUGH the runner (drill her between the shoulder blades).


(That is snark, do not teach your girls to do this)

it is almost exactly what I DD is instructed to do. completely within fair territory, make a hard accurate throw to 1B also in fair territory. if runner wants to not risk getting hit, run where they are supposed to. not saying deliberately hit them, but also do not alter what you do to avoid them.

 

[The Man In Blue]

@The Man In Blue So, if a BR is at the start of the RL outside of it, and the throw hits her, but otherwise would have been a 'quality throw' (i.e. it could have been caught by the 1B) you are not calling RLI because the BR did not interfere directly with the fielder?

You are correct, I am not calling RLI on that. The language of the rule is " interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base ..." A throw hitting the runner at the start of the lane is NOT a throw being taken by the fielder.

It is an interesting interference call because it is one of the few that does NOT rely on the ball as a critical piece. This rule is written very differently from other interference rules. I believe the reason for this has a few parts:

• the runner is running away from the catcher, so making an effort to interfere with the catcher/pitcher/fielder making a throw would be ... well, not impossible, but pretty close.
• the runner is running towards the fielder at the bag and can clearly see what is happening and can make a decision to "try to cause a problem."
• if the rule was written "interferes with the throw" (which other rules DO say), players would simply throw the ball at the runner nearly every time.

Here is an interesting tidbit ... on the recent 12 for 12 with Gerry Davis podcast, MLB umpire Gerry Davis talks about a longstanding effort to eliminate the RLI rule in Major League Baseball. The logic being that the rule was written for a double-base (safety base) and MLB does not use the double base, so it really makes no sense to require the runner run in foul territory and then, at the last moment, have to come back into fair territory to touch the base.

 

[Bullseye]

It doesn't. The rule says that the runner interferes with the fielder receiving the throw at first. The catcher having to move doesn't let you call and out.

Repeat

Not sure it's clear what you're getting at.







If the BR is in the correct place (running lane) I've got nothing regardless what the catcher does or doesn't do. BR has to be somewhere and that's where she is protected from interference. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking.

He doesnt seem to know himself. Oh boy.

 

[Bullseye]

You are correct, I am not calling RLI on that. The language of the rule is " interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base ..." A throw hitting the runner at the start of the lane is NOT a throw being taken by the fielder.

It is an interesting interference call because it is one of the few that does NOT rely on the ball as a critical piece. This rule is written very differently from other interference rules. I believe the reason for this has a few parts:

• the runner is running away from the catcher, so making an effort to interfere with the catcher/pitcher/fielder making a throw would be ... well, not impossible, but pretty close.
• the runner is running towards the fielder at the bag and can clearly see what is happening and can make a decision to "try to cause a problem."
• if the rule was written "interferes with the throw" (which other rules DO say), players would simply throw the ball at the runner nearly every time.

Here is an interesting tidbit ... on the recent 12 for 12 with Gerry Davis podcast, MLB umpire Gerry Davis talks about a longstanding effort to eliminate the RLI rule in Major League Baseball. The logic being that the rule was written for a double-base (safety base) and MLB does not use the double base, so it really makes no sense to require the runner run in foul territory and then, at the last moment, have to come back into fair territory to touch the base.

This guy knows.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Yes the casebook says exactly that, and it conflicts with The Man In Blue's interpretation (the fielder needs to be directly affected). The rule also states "In the judgment of the umpire". RLI calls are nearly always 'had to be there' plays and it is up to my judgment why the C may have delayed her throw. The root of the question is this, if the delay in the throw (and the throw is subsequently made and is a 'quality throw') is judged by the umpire to be caused by the runner being out of the RL, is it RLI?

Granted, I haven't spent much money on casebooks so I had to go back to an old one to find this. If this is the wrong case play, let me know. However, I assume you are talking about this one (from 2011)

8.2.5 SITUATION A: With the bases loaded, B4, who bats left-handed, hits a ground ball to F3, who is left-handed. The ball is just inside the foul line. F3 throws to F2, but hits B4, who is on her way to first base. B4 is in fair territory, but has not reached the 30-foot running lane. RULING: There is no violation, unless the batter-runner intentionally interfered with F3's throw.

This does NOT conflict with my interpretation. Calling interference with a throw (the potential mentioned in the case book) is a different call than calling RLI. It is NOT RLI, it is interfering with a throw.

With that in mind, maybe that is where you are going. YES, the runner CAN be called out for interfering with the throw in the first 30 feet. That is NOT a running lane interference call though.

To be called for interfering with the throw, here is what we need (Article 7, the one immediately after the RLI rule): "The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box ... A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference."

With my reading of the rule, and the language of the case play, to make this call you must deem it was intentional.

 

[knuckleballer]

This seems like the proper place for me to get expert opinions on a call that has bugged me for years.

DD lays down a bunt in a big HS game. She runs to 1st with both feet in the lane. Track marks clearly confirmed this. It's HS so there is no double base. The catcher fields the ball just inside the first base line and her throw hits my DD in the left shoulder just before she touches 1b with her left foot. Home plate umpire calls her out for RLI.

HC calls time and asks for clarification because the track marks clearly confirmed both feet were in lane. Umpire says ball hit her left shoulder which was in fair territory. How can a batter/runner stay in the lane, touch a single bag and not have the left shoulder be in fair territory?

Please give me closure! What say the gurus about this particular call?

 

[The Man In Blue]

This seems like the proper place for me to get expert opinions on a call that has bugged me for years.

DD lays down a bunt in a big HS game. She runs to 1st with both feet in the lane. Track marks clearly confirmed this. It's HS so there is no double base. The catcher fields the ball just inside the first base line and her throw hits my DD in the left shoulder just before she touches 1b with her left foot. Home plate umpire calls her out for interfering with the throw while being outside the running lane.

HC calls time and asks for clarification because the track marks clearly confirmed both feet were in lane. Umpire says ball hit her left shoulder which was in fair territory. How can a batter/runner stay in the lane, touch a single bag and not have the left shoulder be in fair territory?

Please give me closure! What say the gurus about this particular call?

First, your state high school association needs to adopt the double bag. (It is in NFHS rules, but it is up to each individual association if they adopt it.)

Second, ump kicked it. It does not matter where her shoulder is. The rule clearly states it is determined by the position of her feet. See the previous posts of the actual rule language for citation.

 

[EdLovrich]

TMIB: That is the case book situation, but you are focusing on a different part of the interpretation:

but hits B4, who is on her way to first base. B4 is in fair territory, but has not reached the 30-foot running lane. RULING: There is no violation,

The case book clearly makes sure the runner has not reached the RL. This implies that had the same action (throw hits B4) occurred AFTER reaching the RL that there would be a violation. We both agree that interference does not require contact in any other context, why would it require contact in this case alone? I can interfere with your ability to catch a ball by simply altering the path the ball needs to be thrown to you.

 

[The Man In Blue]

TMIB: That is the case book situation, but you are focusing on a different part of the interpretation:




The case book clearly makes sure the runner has not reached the RL. This implies that had the same action (throw hits B4) occurred AFTER reaching the RL that there would be a violation. We both agree that interference does not require contact in any other context, why would it require contact in this case alone? I can interfere with your ability to catch a ball by simply altering the path the ball needs to be thrown to you.

That is the distinction ... RLI does not apply with the "ability [or opportunity]to catch the ball" ... it applies to interfering with a fielder in the act of catching the ball. It is like the difference in interfering with a play or interfering by preventing a play from being made. Different standards that apply in different situations.

I agree you could still have an interference call, but it is NOT RLI in that case.

 

[EdLovrich]

That is the distinction ... RLI does not apply with the "ability [or opportunity]to catch the ball" ... it applies to interfering with a fielder in the act of catching the ball. It is like the difference in interfering with a play or interfering by preventing a play from being made. Different standards that apply in different situations.

I agree you could still have an interference call, but it is NOT RLI in that case.

But you DO have RLI for this reason; If the same throw is made and the runner is IN the RL, you won't all her for interference unless it is intentional.