Jump to content


Photo

Runner's Lane Violation


No replies to this topic

#1 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 27 August 2017 - 08:23 PM

Japan at bat, one out, no one on, bottom of 3rd.
Dropped third strike, throw to first hits batter/runner in fair territory.
Runner gets first, no running lane violation called.

#2 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:52 AM

Japan at bat, one out, no one on, bottom of 3rd.
Dropped third strike, throw to first hits batter/runner in fair territory.
Runner gets first, no running lane violation called.

 

Throw came from the foul side.  Runner was half in fair territory.  If anything the throw should have been easier.  And that's why it doesn't get called in that circumstance.  



#3 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 28 August 2017 - 12:16 PM

I said this yesterday, but it looks like obstruction/ interference/ runner's lane violation will never be called again on TV.
There have been so many blatant instances of these over the past 4 weeks, it's absolutely ridiculous almost none of them have been called.

#4 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 28 August 2017 - 12:22 PM

Two criteria:
Was the runner in the running lane - No
Did the runner interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first - Yes

I agree that a better throw might not have hit the runner but how/why does that negate the runner not being in the runner's lane?
Appeared to me that if the throw hadn't hit the runner F3 could have caught it.

#5 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 28 August 2017 - 02:29 PM

Two criteria:
Was the runner in the running lane - No
Did the runner interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first - Yes

I agree that a better throw might not have hit the runner but how/why does that negate the runner not being in the runner's lane?
Appeared to me that if the throw hadn't hit the runner F3 could have caught it.

 

Why not hit the runner on purpose when you otherwise have a clear throwing lane?



#6 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 28 August 2017 - 02:37 PM

Hate to say it Rich but some managers teach just that !!!

Don't think that was the case here.

#7 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:28 PM

Hate to say it Rich but some managers teach just that !!!

Don't think that was the case here.

 

F2 needs to sidestep and clear a lane.  The fielder at 1B needs to learn how to set up to receive the throw. 

 

On the play in question the runner's position was in fact helping the defense by being out of the way of a decent throw.

 

Could be my fielders,. Could be my runner. I agree with the no call.



#8 amutz

amutz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNorCal

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:34 PM

Looks like one of those cases where the rulebook says 'interference' (as Lou said) but the runner actually aids the defense by staying in fair territory.
If F3 sets up on the foul side and its an easy play since F2 was already on the foul side.
F3 needs to yell outside and set up properly.

If catcher and 1B are set up in fair territory I'd call it interference.
In this case, I'd have a hard time making the call.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users