Dropped 3rd Strike...

[jmkupka]

Batter's swing-momentum brings her well into fair territory, where she stays while running toward 1B.

F3 sets up well foul, on the orange bag, and yells to F2 "Foul side".

At that point, BR veers into the 3ft lane and stays there for the remainder of her run (completely inside the lane, no flailing arms or anything).

BR is hit by the thrown ball.

In this case, she may use fair territory to run, but does she also have the absolute right to the running lane? Sound like (intentional) INT to you?

My only judgement in this play is the BR came into the lane only after (and only because of) hearing F3's instruction (and seeing her position).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Is that different from the third base coach that repeats the mantra to his runner on third, "Down in foul, back in fair"?? You do know why they come back in fair territory, don't you?

In both cases, you have a runner doing what they can legally do, and not doing anything they cannot legally do. If you want to create a judgment based solely on what you have described, where would you draw the line?

Unless the batter-runner looked back to see the throw before she changed her lane, I have nothing. And you are starting a long slide down a treacherous and slippery slope if you are seriously considering that you need to judge and even consider the intent of players doing completely legal things on the ballfield.

[jmkupka]

Understood, Steve, thanks. But, in your scenario (looking back at the throw), you are suggesting that there is a situation where the BR doesn't have the absolute right to the lane?

[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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Understood, Steve, thanks. But, in your scenario (looking back at the throw), you are suggesting that there is a situation where the BR doesn't have the absolute right to the lane?

If she's looking at the throw, and moves into it, that's an intentional act of interference, in my judgment; same as if she waved an arm or stuck out a leg, because she knows where the ball is. With her back turned, that's smart baserunning.

[jmkupka]

Good enough, I was just wondering if taking a cue from F3's verbal, and seeing her position, then making her move from fair to foul, could or should be interpreted as intentional int.

[EsqUmp]

Generally speaking, you better not call intentional interference on someone running away from the throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Generally speaking, you better not call intentional interference on someone running away from the throw.

If it is INT, it is INT regardless of the direction of the runner.

[jmkupka]

so, if you're envisioning my description, can you see a potential intentional INT?

Or is that running lane a sanctuary...

Without those verbal and visual cues, I feel the BR would've stayed in fair ground the whole way.

Don't want to be one of those who keep asking the same question after it's been answered...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

so, if you're envisioning my description, can you see a potential intentional INT?

Or is that running lane a sanctuary...

Without those verbal and visual cues, I feel the BR would've stayed in fair ground the whole way.

Don't want to be one of those who keep asking the same question after it's been answered...

Nothing new has been added by the semantical differences of the last few statements (by two individuals that are fully determined to disagree with each other because they can). The batter-runner is entitled to run in the running lane without jeopardy unless he/she commits a specific act to interfere. You are still looking for someone to agree that you can infer (and therefore rule) she is doing what she MAY DO WITHOUT COMMITTING INTERFERENCE because it benefits her, and that could be interference; no one should rightfully agree.

It is simply smart baserunning. She did what she could legally do without committing an act that is interfering. Kudos to her. Next.

[jmkupka]

Nope, definitely not trying to get anyone here to come over to my side...
Just clarifying my question, I guess.

For black and white decisions, rulebook is my bible.

For grey areas and interps, this place is.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If it is INT, it is INT regardless of the direction of the runner.

It often goes toward intent.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

It often goes toward intent.

When?