Dropped 3rd Strike...

[robbie]

In my opinion, the batter runner probably does have absolute right. However he / she does not have the right to intentionally interfere. If there is "intentional interference" it should be called as so.

Take it to the extreem to illustrate a point:
BR running within the lane but to the extreem left side. BR is looking back to the catcher the whole time and sees the throw is going to miss her to the right but the throw will be within the lane. Now BR sticks right leg into the ball but is still within the lane. Your judgement is not where this occured, but as to whether it was intentional or not.

By the way, I'm not saying that is the case here nor am I saying it should be called in the OP.

[MD Longhorn]

Your understanding of this is completely backward.

No one has a right to anything... the rule simply states (barring intent, of course) that she can't be called out if she's hit with a thrown ball while in the running lane. It's a "safe place" to run.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Your understanding of this is completely backward.

No one has a right to anything... the rule simply states (barring intent, of course) that she can't be called out if she's hit with a thrown ball while in the running lane. It's a "safe place" to run.

Fair enough. I was incorrectly using the wording of the post that said "absolute right to the running lane."

My only intent was to point out (as you more eloquently did) that she can still be called out in the "safe place" if there is an act of deliberate interference within that safe place.