Based on the rule, "on or over" does not logically apply to a settled ball. I imagine that's why it is included it in the BRD.

I seem to recall Evans teaching "on or over" for a settled ball. He made a point of it, in fact.

Still, it was a few years ago, and my memory isn't what it once was...

I seem to remember that too. He had half the class 15 feet fair and the other half 15 feet foul and had everyone call it at once.

Yes, on or over is the OBR interp for settled balls. If you stand from the pitcher's mound, you may see a bit of dirt, but it could still be a fair ball.

Of course the logic applies

Imagine this.

A ball is settled 1/16" short of 1B (not touching it) but only 1/4" of the ball is over fair territory and none of it is touching fair territory. Is it fair or foul?

If you move it the 1/16" so it IS touching 1B then it is a fair ball by rule, even though only 1/4" of it is over fair teritory.

Therefore it makes sense to call it fair for the settled but not touching ball.

Imagine this:

A batted ball is leaving the playing field, Only 1/32" of it is over fair territory, but that causes it to hit the foul pole. It's a fair ball because it hit the pole even though only a small portion of it was fair. Apply the same thought to a settled ball.

That makes sense (finally).

Sorry for the delay here. I am aware of the PBUC's opinion and I have never agreed with it. The 3 ft lane was designed to keep the BR from interfering with the throw from F2 to F3 (when it was originally written) because it was common practice for the BR to watch where F3 was setting up and get between him and F2. That is why the rule was originally written.

Since then, the rule has been played with to include throws from anywhere. How in the world does the BR interfere with a throw from F4 to F3 if BR is not in the running lane? In 30 years, I have never called such nonsense and I have never had an argument. The only time I get arguments are when the throw comes from the plate area and the coach doesn't see what I see when I call the interference.

I know that you and others will argue and by all means go ahead. I have never called nor will I ever call a BR out of the running lane unless he actually interferes with the throw coming from behind him!

Because of the angles involved, it's nigh unto impossible to interfere with a throw from anywhere other than from behind. That's why you only see it called on throws from behind.

However, that doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't call it on a throw from elsewhere if, somehow, a runner managed to interfere.

See, we agree with the spirit and the intent, but I understand what you are saying. If F5 charging down the line to field a soft grounder makes a throw from say, even with the mound, we would have a situation that requires the running lane to come into play. This throw is, in fact, coming from behind the BR.

I know I am a little late on the OP above but believe it or not the same interpretation was given in one of our meetings this year as well. It was near the end of a meeting and I raised a few questions but no one else jumped in on my side. I have an hour ride home from our meetings and the more I thought about what had happened, the more I felt like our clinicians were wrong. I sent an email to them and cc'ed our assignor. They checked with the state office which informed them they were incorrect and the lines were part of the lane.

The new interpretation was given as result of the point of emphasis on the 3ft lane given in the FED book this year. The phrase "the runner must be completely INSIDE the lane" to avoid a possible interference call had thrown them off I think. Ultimately, they corrected themselves to the group and all was well. I am glad I spoke up.

Lawrence

Actually, the rule was written so that the BR could not intentionally crash the 1st baseman causing him to drop the ball, as he is legally allowed to do at other bases. Back in the day, the foul line split 1st base in half, so half was fair, half was foul. That is why the BR was required to stay within the lines the entire time. When 1st base was moved entirely into fair territory, they failed to amend the rule so that the BR could legally leave the runner's lane in order to touch first base. Now, as long as the BR has legally run within the lane, he is allowed to leave the lane in order to touch first without being in jeopardy of being called out for interference. He can leave the lane once he is in the vicinity of the bag, usually a stride or two, or another common interp is once he has reached the cutout. In OBR, for interference to be called, the throw must be a quality throw. In FED, any throw can lead to INT. In NCAA, it still must be a quality throw, but you can judge INT if you feel the throw was altered by the location of the runner.

After posting this in haste, I should mention that this rule was also intended to keep the BR from zig-zagging down the line in order to interfere with a throw to first base. Sorry Ozzy.

Or, when coach simply does not know the rule or argues it nonetheless. I had a textbook case last weekend and coach knew full well the batter was out of the running lane and argued anyway. Then, he wanted to argue that the runner on 2b should get 3b because he was there already when the catcher's throw hit the runner. He had crossed the plate while the defense was chasing the ball that hit the batter.

If F5 charges a ball and throws from inside the mound to first base, and BR is running in fair territory, and F3 must reach toward BR to field the ball. Collision: Do you call INT or OBS?

Or maybe nothing?

Sounds (reads) like interference to me, assuming BR was in fair territory the entire time (and not just on his approach to the base).