Running lane violation
 

Can I get your opinion on this video (1st play):

https://www.brainshark.com/arbitersp...ollisionNotRev

It is indicated that neither player did anything wrong, so no call. It is even reiterated that BR is still within the basepath and legal.

Not sure if this is the case in NCAA, but in USA on the last step the runner is allowed to leave the running lane.

I found the second one interesting. That's clearly not nothing. It's obstruction just that the result of the play is a foul ball.

I must be seeing this completely wrong... doesn't look to me that she was ever in the running lane. I agree with your take on the 2nd vid...

In play 2, I would have interference. The ball was fair at time of collision. In theory, F2 had a play.

Caveat: IMHO

Play #1: BR is out for interference. This is a call for the PU trailing up the line. (Yes, I know what the guidance is, but I respectfully and firmly disagree in this instance)

NCAA 12.5.5 - The batter-runner is out: when either of her feet is completely outside the runner's lane, in contact with the ground, and, in the judgment of the umpire, she interferes with the fielder taking the throw. Exceptions: She may run outside the runner's lane: (1) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner's lane; (2) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (3) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base.

This BR interferes with the fielder. She never ran in the runner's lane. Therefore, she is ineligible for exit protection on her last stride. (See also: Holbrook; 2019 MLB World Series) None of the listed exceptions apply. IMHO, this is an INT out. The concept of a "base path" is not applicable here; there is no tag nor deviation in her line to the base.

Play #2: This is nothing but an ugly foul ball.

NCAA 12.17.2.1.5 - Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play.

The ball is behind R3 at the time of contact with F2. Even if R3 becomes non-corporeal and goes 'poof' at the moment of contact, F2 cannot make a play on R3, nor is a throw to 1B going to reasonably make an out. With the benefit of paused video and slo-mo, we can see that F2 has given up on the play prior to contact. If this stays fair, it's gonna be ugly, but this is OBS on F2.

Again: IMO!

Some "guest book" wants me to sign up, so not seen.

Make one up.

I probably wouldn't have seen this in real time.... the Batter Runner in the first play steps to the inside portion of the base and subtly lowers her shoulder.... NOT "nothing".

Finally got back to this, not NCAA.
Play #1 - I think I would have called INT by the BR.
Play #2 - F5 protected while fielding, not F2. Clearly OBS.

Both - should they be UC ?

Cite the USA rule that provides such an allowance

Dont have my USA book handy, but with the double-base, I'd be surprised to see that comment in the rule...

Yup, you won't find it.

8-2-E addresses the runner's lane (three-foot lane in USA terminology) and has no "last step" provision. 8-2-N dictates that the double base is to be used at 1B in all divisions of play, with the interference penalties listed at the end in an unlabeled section/comment. (2019 book, page 92)

I agree with nothing on the first play. I think the shoulder move that is mentioned is actually bracing for the impact and not an intent to lower the shoulder into the fielder.

As for the second one, I think when the contact occurs the ball is foul, and F2 does not have an opportunity to make a play, so therefore it is nothing but a foul ball.

Just my opinions watching the plays once.

I decided to watch the play again. The issue in play one is as much on the fielder as it is the runner. If you watch the fielder carefully, until the moment the ball arrives at her glove she is completely across first base. She is not bringing the other foot forward back towards the fair side of the base until the throw and runner are arriving at first base.

This is an intentional act in my opinion in an effort to get the batter-runner to slow done because first base is blocked. There is nowhere for the batter-runner to go running full speed except into the F3.

Also, F3 catches the ball with her glove about even with the foul line. Had her glove been out in front of her reaching for the throw two things happen. One, the glove is not contacted by the runner running at full speed to the base, and two, the catch is made prior to the runner getting to the base.

Her poor positioning on the play was as much the reason that this play happened as anything else.

I do agree though, the runner is NEVER in the running lane.

I will add one more thing to this discussion. This is a perfect example of why the double first base is so important and needs to be adopted for higher levels of softball. With a double first base this play doesn't happen and the potential injury associated with the play would not happen.

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.