Three Foot Running Lane

[batterup]

Doing an unlimited age group game under OBR. There's a ground ball up the first baseline. The pitcher picks it up about 10 feet short of the 45 foot line near the line. He hurriedly wheels and throws and hits the runner about 10 feet from first in the left shoulder. The left foot of the runner was in fair territory but the thrown ball looked like it was obviously offline and going 10-15 feet to the right of the first baseman. Under rule 6.05k, would the errant throw nullify interference and the runner would not be out?

[joemoore]

Under rule 6.05k, would the errant throw nullify interference and the runner would not be out?

I think you are correct. There is no interference unless the defense has a play. Another example. Bunt, everyone charges and no one covers first. Pitcher aims at the batter and hits him outside the lane. We're not playing "kick ball".

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by batterup
Doing an unlimited age group game under OBR. There's a ground ball up the first baseline. The pitcher picks it up about 10 feet short of the 45 foot line near the line. He hurriedly wheels and throws and hits the runner about 10 feet from first in the left shoulder. The left foot of the runner was in fair territory but the thrown ball looked like it was obviously offline and going 10-15 feet to the right of the first baseman. Under rule 6.05k, would the errant throw nullify interference and the runner would not be out?

Whether in or out of the running lane, the offense should never be penalized for an errant throw. The throw has got to have a reasonable chance of putting out the batter-runner.

Otherwise, it would be target practice out there on any batter-runner out of the lane. Just because a batter-runner is out of the lane does not give the defense license to throw the ball at the BR, rather than first base.

You simply cannot have interference if there was no play to be interfered with. Since the throw was errant, there was obviously no play on the BR at first - no interference.

The ball is alive and in play.

[Brent McLaren]

Yes, there must be a proper throw to retire the runner, but there are even finer lines to draw ...

As you describe the play, the runner would only be out of the lane while his left foot is on the ground. So, if the ball hits the runner when his left foot is not in contact, you do not have a running lane violation!

There is a still finer line: the runner is permitted to cross into fair territory to touch the base. This is usually acceptable about 2 steps (or just under ten feet) prior to the base. The base is in fair territory, how can a runner touch it if you require him to run in foul?

Originally the bases were half in fair, half in foul territory. That is when the rule was created. The configuration of the bases changed but the wording of the rule remained constant. The application of the rule changed, but try to find documentation on that.

In your case the throw was obviously errant, so you cannot even consider the interference call.

Brent

[Blaine Gallant]

As you describe the play, the runner would only be out of the lane while his left foot is on the ground. So, if the ball hits the runner when his left foot is not in contact, you do not have a running lane violation!

Brent:

What are you talking about? Can I have some of those drugs?

Just because his foot is off the ground means nothing. If ANY PART of his body is over fair territory (whether touching the ground or not) he is out.

That is clearly spelled out in 7.09K note. " The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of the "lane" but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot "lane" or on the lines marking the "lane"". Just because his foot is off the gound, it is not within the confines of the lane.

If we have a quality throw, we have an out.

Blaine

[Bfair]

I agree with you again, Blaine (believe it or not).

If the runner's previous step was in fair territory and you judge his next left step (when it hits the ground) would also be in fair territory, then he is illegal if interfering with the play---even if the throw hits him in his right shoulder which may be in foul territory. The position of runner makes him, the one who interferes, in violation of the rule.

Now, let's talk about the described play.
The runner has ONLY his left foot in fair territory----not too far from the legal lane going straight to the base.
The throw hits him in the shoulder---not too high.
Sounds to me like the throw is headed to the base at the right height. You know, F3 can still hold the base and reach (or even stretch) to get the ball. It sure doesn't sound like a non-quality throw based on what you described---only what you said.

It sounds to me more like someone might be rationalizing on a call they didn't make when they should have. I have a tough time envisioning a non-quality throw from your description.

Finally, let's drop all this BS about the runner having to move to fair territory because the base is there so he gets the last 10 ft. into fair territory. Hogwash. Maybe they should have made the running lane the last 45-80 feet of the 90 foot basepath.
That was just a stupid excuse to cover for a blown MLB call in the Knaublock play in the playoffs. If players can hit an 80 mph fastball, they can control their feet and their body location. Just how many do you see running in fair territory when they get a hit to the outfield??? NONE. I guess they can control where they put their bodies then. Get real and quit hiding behind excuses.

Just my opinion,

Steve