The 1st Base Runners Lane

[SteveA]

I don't know, but they couldn't change where the runner is supposed to be based on where the throw is coming from.   There's no way you can expect a guy running as fast as he can to know what's going on behind him and change where he is supposed to be.  

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't know, but they couldn't change where the runner is supposed to be based on where the throw is coming from.   There's no way you can expect a guy running as fast as he can to know what's going on behind him and change where he is supposed to be.  

Pretty sure that’s right.   

[OFFNY]

o

 

(ORIOLES vs. RED SOX, 6/16)

 

Keon Broxton ........ a right-handed batter ......... was called out on interference after what appeared to be an excellent safety-squeeze bunt-single for an RBI. 

Not only did he not get the single, he did not get the RBI, either ........ the runner had to go back to 3rd base.

 

o

[OFFNY]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:28 PM, esmd said:

 

Yeah I've never liked the rule. If you ran straight down the lane, you'd go right by first base without touching it. Stupid rule.

 

o

 

As I have stated in other posts, I don't think that there is an easy answer ........ it's clearly unrealistic to expect right-handed batters to sprint full speed on a bunt and/or a slow dribbler, get to the right of the baseline (while continuing to run full speed), and then somehow get your landing foot to touch the bag when you arrive at the base. I've even seen left-handed batters have trouble abiding by the rule the way that it is written, but for right-handed batters, it's really not possible. As I have also said, I did an experiment when I went to a game a Yankees Stadium ........ I sat directly behind home plate in the upper deck, and not one single right-handed batter on either team abode by the rule on all of the ground balls that were hit to the infield. 

 

Completely abandoning the rule is unfair to the defense. Keeping the rule as is is not fair to the batter (especially right-handed batters.) I don't have the answer ......... I just know that it is a problem the way that it currently stands.

 

o

[Chavez Ravine]

I think the rule should be changed in the runner’s favor. First, the rules for running the bases should be consistent for all the bases. Second, I favor the minimum of rules. Let the runners run and the defense  try to get them out with the minimum of artificial constraint. 

[Number5]

47 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

As I have stated in other posts, I don't think that there is an easy answer ........ it's clearly unrealistic to expect right-handed batters to sprint full speed on a bunt and/or a slow dribbler, get to the right of the baseline (while continuing to run full speed), and then somehow get your landing foot to touch the bag when you arrive at the base. I've even seen left-handed batters have trouble abiding by the rule the way that it is written, but for right-handed batters, it's really not possible. As I have also said, I did an experiment when I went to a game a Yankees Stadium ........ I sat directly behind home plate in the upper deck, and not one single right-handed batter on either team abode by the rule on all of the ground balls that were hit to the infield. 

 

Completely abandoning the rule is unfair to the defense. Keeping the rule as is is not fair to the batter (especially right-handed batters.) I don't have the answer ......... I just know that it is a problem the way that it currently stands.

 

o

The runners lane doesn't apply on ground balls to the infield, so there is no rules violation ever on those plays.  It only applies on plays in front of home plate where the throw to first would be coming from behind the runner.  The players have played with the rule their entire lives and know that they need to get to the right of the foul line by the time they are half-way down the line to first base on a bunt or tap out in front of the plate.  It is neither impossible nor news to these players. 

The rule was put in during the dead ball era where bunts were far more common and batters would intentionally run in fair territory to impede the throw coming from behind them.  Intentionally running in the way of a throw is interference heading toward all bases, but is exceedingly hard to call because it is impossible to determine intent most of the time.  Normally, being hit by a throw is nothing, because the runner has no control over where a fielder throws the ball.  The runners lane was created to avoid the intent question specifically on that one situation where a throw to first base would be coming from behind the runner.  Everybody knew that guys were doing it on purpose, but calling it was problematic.  Creating the runners lane ended those arguments.

[OFFNY]

1 hour ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

As I have stated in other posts, I don't think that there is an easy answer ........ it's clearly unrealistic to expect right-handed batters to sprint full speed on a bunt and/or a slow dribbler, get to the right of the baseline (while continuing to run full speed), and then somehow get your landing foot to touch the bag when you arrive at the base. I've even seen left-handed batters have trouble abiding by the rule the way that it is written, but for right-handed batters, it's really not possible. As I have also said, I did an experiment when I went to a game a Yankees Stadium ........ I sat directly behind home plate in the upper deck, and not one single right-handed batter on either team abode by the rule on all of the ground balls that were hit to the infield. 

 

Completely abandoning the rule is unfair to the defense. Keeping the rule as is is not fair to the batter (especially right-handed batters.) I don't have the answer ......... I just know that it is a problem the way that it currently stands.

 

o

 

 

20 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

The runners lane doesn't apply on ground balls to the infield, so there is no rules violation ever on those plays.  It only applies on plays in front of home plate where the throw to first would be coming from behind the runner.  The players have played with the rule their entire lives and know that they need to get to the right of the foul line by the time they are half-way down the line to first base on a bunt or tap out in front of the plate.  It is neither impossible nor news to these players.

 

o

 

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all, as do numerous other posters, who all see the rule as a problem with the rule ........ not the "newness", but the possibility/realistic expectations of right-handed batters to abide by it. The bag is completely in fair territory, the running lane is completely in foul territory, and the right-handed batters box is well to the left of 1st base.

I have also heard numerous broadcasters of different teams voice the same opinion (not just the Orioles. I was watching a Rays game last year, and they espoused the same sentiment ........ right-handed batters make a bee-line for the bag on bunts and slow dribblers in front of home plate, and there is no way that they can do that and use the runner's lane when doing so. If they did, it wouldn't be a bee-line, but rather a circular path toward the bag. In fact, I can't remember a single time in which I have seen a right-handed base-runner do that on a bunt or a slow-dribbler in front of the plate, unless it was a sacrifice bunt in which he had no intention of reaching safely.) Almost every time a close play in this category is deemed interference, it almost always is a problem/controversy.

 

o

[Aristotelian]

Setting aside the question of what the rule should be, players know what the rule is and should not cost their teams automatic outs.

[Chavez Ravine]

8 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Setting aside the question of what the rule should be, players know what the rule is and should not cost their teams automatic outs.

Well, duh.

[Number5]

30 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all, as do numerous other posters, who all see the rule as a problem with the rule ........ not the "newness", but the possibility/realistic expectations of right-handed batters to abide by it. The bag is completely in fair territory, the running lane is completely in foul territory, and the right-handed batters box is well to the left of 1st base.

I have also heard numerous broadcasters of different teams voice the same opinion (not just the Orioles. I was watching a Rays game last year, and they espoused the same sentiment ........ right-handed batters make a bee-line for the bag on bunts and slow dribblers in front of home plate, and there is no way that they can do that and use the runner's lane when doing so. If they did, it wouldn't be a bee-line, but rather a circular path toward the bag.) In fact, I can't remember a single time in which I have seen a right-handed base-runner do that on a bunt or a slow-dribbler in front of the plate, unless it was a sacrifice bunt in which he had no intention of reaching safely.) Almost every time a close play in this category is deemed interference, it almost always is a problem/controversy.)

 

o

I'm sorry, but this just isn't right.  Most of the time, by a very wide margin, the runner is running in the runners lane on this type of play.  They do, indeed, know to do this.  Although there are many bunts and taps throughout all levels of baseball, this type of interference is a pretty rare occurrence, much less being called almost every time as you assert. 

I've been umpiring for a dozen or more years, and I know I've called it once.  I may have called it another time or two, but I can't recall doing so.  I only remember one time, and it was very clear-cut.  I think what's happening here is a case where you notice when it happens, but not the much more common occurrence of not having interference.  You might want to check with people that have played the game at any level.  It really isn't impossible, and it is understood by the players.  Additionally, the rule allows for the fact that the runner must necessarily take the last step or two in fair territory in order to touch the base.  That part of it is a non-issue, and interference is never called for that movement to touch the base.  Frankly the majority of arguments pertaining to this rule come from the defensive manager/coach arguing that there was interference when there was none.  Few coaches seem to realize that there must be a throw.  If there is a throw, the throw must be good enough to make a play on, and the fielder receiving the throw must be interfered with in some way if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  Many think the act of being out of the runners lane in and of itself is an out.  It's not.

[OFFNY]

15 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm sorry, but this just isn't right.  Most of the time, by a very wide margin, the runner is running in the runners lane on this type of play.  They do, indeed, know to do this.  Although there are many bunts and taps throughout all levels of baseball, this type of interference is a pretty rare occurrence, much less being called almost every time as you assert. 

I've been umpiring for a dozen or more years, and I know I've called it once.  I may have called it another time or two, but I can't recall doing so.  I only remember one time, and it was very clear-cut.  I think what's happening here is a case where you notice when it happens, but not the much more common occurrence of not having interference.  You might want to check with people that have played the game at any level.  It really isn't impossible, and it is understood by the players.  Additionally, the rule allows for the fact that the runner must necessarily take the last step or two in fair territory in order to touch the base.  That part of it is a non-issue, and interference is never called for that movement to touch the base.  Frankly the majority of arguments pertaining to this rule come from the defensive manager/coach arguing that there was interference when there was none.  Few coaches seem to realize that there must be a throw.  If there is a throw, the throw must be good enough to make a play on, and the fielder receiving the throw must be interfered with in some way if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  Many think the act of being out of the runners lane in and of itself is an out.  It's not.

o

 

You just said in the other thread that Broxton did not violate the rule, because it was not in the line of the throw. Fine. But Broxton was nowhere near the runner's lane on his way to the bag. By the time that he drew even with the runner's lane, he then took 6 full steps before reaching the bag, and each and every one of them was way inside the runner's lane. You can tell me about your experiences as an umpire all you want, and advise me on consulting others who have played the game at any level (and I have played the game at several levels), but Broxton (and almost all of the right-handed batters) almost never use that running lane on bunts and slow dribblers. 

 

o

[Chavez Ravine]

16 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm sorry, but this just isn't right.  Most of the time, by a very wide margin, the runner is running in the runners lane on this type of play.  They do, indeed, know to do this.  Although there are many bunts and taps throughout all levels of baseball, this type of interference is a pretty rare occurrence, much less being called almost every time as you assert. 

I've been umpiring for a dozen or more years, and I know I've called it once.  I may have called it another time or two, but I can't recall doing so.  I only remember one time, and it was very clear-cut.  I think what's happening here is a case where you notice when it happens, but not the much more common occurrence of not having interference.  You might want to check with people that have played the game at any level.  It really isn't impossible, and it is understood by the players.  Additionally, the rule allows for the fact that the runner must necessarily take the last step or two in fair territory in order to touch the base.  That part of it is a non-issue, and interference is never called for that movement to touch the base.  Frankly the majority of arguments pertaining to this rule come from the defensive manager/coach arguing that there was interference when there was none.  Few coaches seem to realize that there must be a throw.  If there is a throw, the throw must be good enough to make a play on, and the fielder receiving the throw must be interfered with in some way if the throw doesn't hit the runner.  Many think the act of being out of the runners lane in and of itself is an out.  It's not.

I am forgetting the details, but wasn't there a play in the recent Giants series of this (that was presumably wrongly called)? An Orioles pitcher threw what would have been an errant throw to first except for the fact that the Giants base runner got in the way. The base runner was ruled out for interference. Bochy was not pleased.

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

You just said in the other thread that Broxton did not violate the rule, because it was not in the line of the throw. Fine. But Broxton was nowhere near the runner's lane on his way to the bag. By the time that he drew even with the runner's lane, he then took 6 full steps before reaching the bag, and each and every one of them was way inside the runner's lane. You can tell me about your experiences as an umpire all you want, and advise me on consulting others who have played the game at any level (and I have played the game at several levels), but Broxton (and almost all of the right-handed batters) almost never use that running lane on bunts and slow dribblers. 

 

o

The rarity of this type of call is apparently not enough to convince you that runners do,' indeed, usually get into the runners lane on this type of play.  Interference simply doesn't happen nearly as often as you seem to think.  I am quite sure of what I'm saying, but it is obvious that I cannot convince you, so we'll just have to disagree on this.

[Number5]

Let's put it this way:  it happens rare enough that this MLB plate umpire actually called interference on a play in which the throw didn't hit the runner, the fielder caught the throw, and the fielder's jump up and off the bag was to catch the ball and was not caused by any obstruction or impeding by the runner.  This MLB umpire based his call apparently solely on the runner being out of the runners lane, which by rule is not enough in and of itself to make an interference call.  It just doesn't happen very often.

[OFFNY]

23 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

You just said in the other thread that Broxton did not violate the rule, because it was not in the line of the throw. Fine. But Broxton was nowhere near the runner's lane on his way to the bag. By the time that he drew even with the runner's lane, he then took 6 full steps before reaching the bag, and each and every one of them was way inside the runner's lane. You can tell me about your experiences as an umpire all you want, and advise me on consulting others who have played the game at any level (and I have played the game at several levels), but Broxton (and almost all of the right-handed batters) almost never use that running lane on bunts and slow dribblers. 

o

 

 

13 minutes ago, Number5 said:

The rarity of this type of call is apparently not enough to convince you that runners do,' indeed, usually get into the runners lane on this type of play.  Interference simply doesn't happen nearly as often as you seem to think.  I am quite sure of what I'm saying, but it is obvious that I cannot convince you, so we'll just have to disagree on this.

o

 

Fine, we can disagree and leave it at that, but I don't just notice it on interference calls. I have also watched right-handed batters running out of the box on bunts and slow dribblers (largely due to my interest in this particular rule), and I rarely see them use the runner's lane (again, with the exception of sacrifice bunts in which the batter has almost no intention of beating the throw.)

 

o