Running lane violation?

[UMP 64]

If the 1st baseman had been on the foul side of first, the throw probably should have been easier for the ump to call?
If the pitcher had hit the runner in the back, the call should have been "OUT" for a running lane violation. As it happened, the batter/runner was not hit and the pitcher had to throw over top of the runner. Result: safe!
As far as the batter being hit in the knee with the ball, just one of those things NO ONE saw!
The best team won that night & that series.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP 64

The best team won that night & that series.

The series isn't over yet.

[DG]

No violation in FED or OBR, that I can see. Had he been hit by the throw farther from 1b, say 5 or 10', I think we have RLV in both. Had he been hit as he stepped toward the bag with his last step, as the ball arrived, then NO RLV in either, since the bag is in fair territory and that is the one place he can be, to step on the bag. Since he was not hit, and fielder caught the ball, he did not interfere.

There is a FED interp that says if the fielder throws over F3 head due to runner out of running lane, then call RLV.

[RPatrino]

DG, the runner in this clip never left the running lane. Are you talking in general terms or refering to this clip?

[DG]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

DG, the runner in this clip never left the running lane. Are you talking in general terms or refering to this clip?

Well both I guess, I saw the clip and he never left the lane, but the throw arrived as he was stepping toward the bag with his last step, the thrown ball was caught, just not in time. If the ball hits him in the back here it does not matter. What is the difference between running in the running lane and stepping his last step to the bag and getting hit in the back vs. running entire distance out of lane and getting hit in the back on his last step?. Running out of the lane is nothing until the ball arrives and there is interference with fielder receiving. That the ball was caught proves no interference with the fielder receiving the throw.

[RPatrino]

Those of you who say you would call interference on this play if the throw hit the B/R, please explain the rule that allows you to make this call.

[DG]

From the clip it appears that the throw came from a F1 who was on the move and in a very off balance position and I don't think position of the runner had anything to do with it being high. It was caught so not interference. Had he thrown it over F3's head it would still not be interference because it was not a quality throw. Had he hit him in the back while he was stepping to the bag no interference because he is allowed to be there for the last step.

I got nothing on the RLV question. Off his leg is a separate subject and I doubt any of us have not missed at least one of those.

[Cub42]

The interference talk here is a moot point. Utley was on the inside of the line . He was safe at first. As to calling interference, it is the PU's call.

[TussAgee11]

If anything, running in fair territory actually helped F1's angle.

It certainly didn't hurt his throw. If he stops, plants, and fires, we may have something here.

By the time F3 was fielding, Utley was where he should have been, so no INT on that part of it.

I'm not so sure the foot was pulled, really hard to tell and that is a banger no doubt. A crappy play by the F1 if you ask me.