running lane - for throws only

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

exactly... the three go together. that's why I try to make it one long word when describing the rule... runner must slideavoidorsurrender

JM, you're not getting it. You CANNOT mandate a player to slide.

Sliding is an acceptable avoidance technique, but if you said in your plate conference that runners MUST SLIDE to avoid contact - and they do - and get injured as a result, YOU are at fault.

[jmkupka]

that should not be part of a pregame conference, but if asked to explain your call during a gamel, the verbiage in the book is always your best bet to use:

To prevent a deliberate crash ruling, the runner can slide, jump over
the top of the defender holding the ball, go around the defender or return to
the previous base touched.

NCAA

(my previous comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek)

[teebob21]

IMO, for this situation, the runner's lane is irrelevant. What we have here is a train wreck. We have two options: INT or nothing. Without seeing the play, I'm leaning towards INT, as by rule, a runner who remains upright and contacts the fielder making a play is interference.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

IMO, for this situation, the runner's lane is irrelevant. What we have here is a train wreck. We have two options: INT or nothing. Without seeing the play, I'm leaning towards INT, as by rule, a runner who remains upright and contacts the fielder making a play is interference.

I probably could have sold this play as INT, but I didn't think it qualified under RS13.

"...a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag."

I view RS13 as the typical Pete Rose/Ray Fosse All Star play at the plate. Players used to be able to do that. Now, even MLB has changed that rule.

This play was BR arriving a split second after F3 managed to field the ball. I am in the "wreck" camp on this one.

One of those plays that no matter how you rule, the "other team" is gonna hate you.

[jmkupka]

Trying to let the whole thing play itself out, if the fielder wasn't attempting to apply a tag, then she should still have had the opportunity to make a throw to the base (where the tag could be applied).

Either way, I think INT is the appropriate call.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I probably could have sold this play as INT, but I didn't think it qualified under RS13.

"...a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag."

I view RS13 as the typical Pete Rose/Ray Fosse All Star play at the plate. Players used to be able to do that. Now, even MLB has changed that rule.

This play was BR arriving a split second after F3 managed to field the ball. I am in the "wreck" camp on this one.

One of those plays that no matter how you rule, the "other team" is gonna hate you.

I think you are being too stringent about the word "crash".
In the OP case, the BR collided with the fielder strongly enough to cause dropping the ball; which would be a "crash".

Other side of coin. If the fielder dropped the ball because of not having secure possession; then the BR impeded fielding a batted ball.

Either way, interference.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I think you are being too stringent about the word "crash".
In the OP case, the BR collided with the fielder strongly enough to cause dropping the ball; which would be a "crash".

Other side of coin. If the fielder dropped the ball because of not having secure possession; then the BR impeded fielding a batted ball.

Either way, interference.

You say to-may'-toe; I say to-mah'-to.

I don't think your particular coin has 2 sides - both sides of your coin result in INT. Very fair!