[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let me try.

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball. So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

that makes more sense. I think my issue is that being stuck by a thrown ball in reference to 8.2.F.3 would be interference. Especially now with taking out 'intent' in interference.