Running lane violation

[Manny A]

Not sure when the video came out, but I have to say that at the 40-second mark you can see F3 is clearly in the BR's path without the ball as the BR is about 5 feet from the bag (the ball is just even with the BR's left shoulder. So obstruction should've been ruled.

The collision happened after F3 had the ball in her mitt. So I don't see where there would be any runner's lane violation here. The rule requires the BR to hinder the fielder's attempt to receive the thrown ball. F3 did receive it; she just didn't hold onto it afterward.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Not sure when the video came out, but I have to say that at the 40-second mark you can see F3 is clearly in the BR's path without the ball as the BR is about 5 feet from the bag (the ball is just even with the BR's left shoulder. So obstruction should've been ruled.

The collision happened after F3 had the ball in her mitt. So I don't see where there would be any runner's lane violation here. The rule requires the BR to hinder the fielder's attempt to receive the thrown ball. F3 did receive it; she just didn't hold onto it afterward.

I can answer the question as to when. This game was played on March 23rd, 2018, and resulted in a 2-1 Washington win in 8 innings. This play happened in the top of the 8th, when Arizona got two on before a strikeout ended the inning. Washington's leadoff in the 8th homered to end the game.

[jmkupka]

If the runner is in the running lane, she wont be called for INT (unless she intentionally interferes), regardless of the quality of the throw or positioning of the fielder.

If she's out of the lane, she is liable to be called for INT if the ball COULD have been caught if not for her presence outside the RL, regardless of the throw.