running lane - for throws only

[Tru_in_Blu]

USA Softball 18U tournament this past weekend.

First pitch of the game, lefty batter tries a drag bunt down first base line. F3 charges in to field the ball and picks it up literally off the chalk maybe 3 feet beyond where the running lane begins. She has the ball for less than a second when there is a collision between BR and F3. Both players go down in a heap.

I called the BR out on a tag. First base coach claims that F3 dropped the ball. I check with my partner who says F3 did indeed drop the ball. I asked if he thought she had it long enough for the out to stand and he did not think so. I overturned my original call and the BR was ruled safe at first.

Now defensive coach is complaining about the runner not being in the runner's lane which gets me to thinking about the play. My thoughts were such:

• I didn't have INT since F3 was actually able to field the ball.
• I didn't have INT under the crash rule - this was bang, bang two players colliding.
• I didn't have OBS since F3 was making a play on a fair batted ball.

The part I did question was the runner's use of the running lane. But I think it applies more to thrown balls if/when the runner is hit with a thrown ball. There was a spike mark just past where the running lane begins that might indicate that the runner tried to veer to her right at the last moment. That spike mark was clearly in fair territory which is what the defensive coach argued.

Comments?

[jmkupka]

When a defensive player is in possession of the ball with the runner approaching, the runner is required to slide, avoid, or surrender.

If the runner is doing one of these, the fielder needs to maintain control through the tagging process.

Doesn't sound like the runner did any of these. As described, I think I'd stay with my out call...

And the running lane isn't a factor in this play; if this happened between 1B and 2B, I'd have the same call.

[CecilOne]

Runner remaining upright, running into a fielder with the ball, is interference.

If the fielder did not keep control, was the runner interfering with fielding a batted ball.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Runner remaining upright, running into a fielder with the ball, is interference.

If the fielder did not keep control, was the runner interfering with fielding a batted ball.

Please read RS13.

I interpret "crashing" and "running into" differently.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

When a defensive player is in possession of the ball with the runner approaching, the runner is required to slide, avoid, or surrender.

I only work 2 sanctions: USA Softball and NFHS Softball. Neither of those "require" a runner to slide.

The wording in RS13 is that a runner "may" slide (etc.). Doesn't make any sense for a runner that is 28' from first base to slide. She cannot "return to the previous base" since she doesn't have one.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I only work 2 sanctions: USA Softball and NFHS Softball. Neither of those "require" a runner to slide.

The wording in RS13 is that a runner "may" slide (etc.). Doesn't make any sense for a runner that is 28' from first base to slide. She cannot "return to the previous base" since she doesn't have one.

He said "slide, avoid, or surrender."

[jmkupka]

and I don't believe there's a stipulation that these actions have to occur anywhere near a base... only near that fielder holding the ball

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

He said "slide, avoid, or surrender."

Don't disagree with that.

Disagree with "required to slide". Lawsuits, anyone?

[jmkupka]

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

The part I did question was the runner's use of the running lane. But I think it applies more to thrown balls if/when the runner is hit with a thrown ball.

There was a spike mark just past where the running lane begins that might indicate that the runner tried to veer to her right at the last moment. That spike mark was clearly in fair territory which is what the defensive coach argued.

Comments?

The running lane rule is about interfering with a play at 1st, not on the way and not specifically with getting hit with the ball.

I don't believe we should ever treat spike marks or footprints as conclusive.