FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[DG]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Is the piece for FED true? I'd have a hard time calling INT on a terrible throw that the runner did not cause. Is there an interp out there on this for FED?

From 2004 Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

From 2004 Interpretations:

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.

I inquired about this situation at an association meeting and the answer was, "Yes, the runner must be in the running lane". Just my take on the play.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That same set of interps has, iirc, a similar play where the bad throw is NOT caused by the runner and the ruling is "no interference." Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

Also, I'm reasonable certain there's a play where F2 fields the dropped third strike in foul territory. BR runs in fair territory and is hit (obviously while out of the lane). Ruling: No interference.

You are correct. I was only posting the one that referred to throwing over F3's head.

From the same 2004 Interps:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception).

It would seem Elliot's take on this appears to differ from the published 2004 Interps. It would also seem that FED wants a throw over F3's head to be ruled interference but other bad throws not.