running lane - for throws only

[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!