R1 at 1B. BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory. BR runs into fair territory to avaid crash and is subsequently hit by thrown ball from F3 to F4. Called dead ball BR out and all heck breaks loose. Off Coach says girl went to fair territroy to avoid F3. My partner and I discussed it and ended up with R1 at 2nd and BR on 1st (now R2) with no outs. Game played under NCAA rules. I can find a number of different ways I can interpret the book to get an out w/ R1 on 2nd or 3rd and I can also justify where we ended up. Any suggestions on how this should or could have gone?

Sounds like there should have been no call. BR did what she had to do to avoid INT, has no responsibility to avoid the throw.

A question though, did F3 bobble INTO foul territory? I am assuming first touch was fair.

I don't do NCAA, but IMHO if F3 bobble the ball into foul territory and the runner was struck by the thrown ball in fair territory, I don't see how the runner could interfere with the player covering first in receiving the throw.

No call, play on.

Sounds like if F3 touched the ball first in foul territory, then it's a foul ball, and hence, a dead ball. Strike one.

How about clearing up where the ball, the fielder, and/or the ball and the fielder were when the fielder fielded the ball.

Bluefoot, I think he meant that the ball, after it was bobbled in fair territory, wound up in foul territory. I would hope no umpire gave the B-R first base on a foul ball!

My understanding has always been that if the BR runs out of the three foot lane to avoid a fielder fielding the ball, there is no subsequent penalty if they are hit by the thrown ball. Obviously a judgement call, and probably a HTBT one.

<i>R1 at 1B. BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory. </i>
__________________________________________________ _____

This sorta kinda, tells me ball and F3 are in foul territory.

So until I hear otherwise, foul ball, reset, play on.
__________________________________________________ _____
<i>BR runs into fair territory to avaid crash and is subsequently hit by thrown ball from F3 to F4. Called dead ball BR out and all heck breaks loose. Off Coach says girl went to fair territroy to avoid F3. My partner and I discussed it and ended up with R1 at 2nd and BR on 1st (now R2) with no outs. Game played under NCAA rules. I can find a number of different ways I can interpret the book to get an out w/ R1 on 2nd or 3rd and I can also justify where we ended up. Any suggestions on how this should or could have gone?</i>

Where was F4 - in fair on 1B or in foul on 1B? Was this a quality throw. I'm not sure from your description, but it almost sounds as if this was not a quality throw. If it was not a quality throw, then the B-R did not interfere with F4's effort to catch the thrown ball.

Assuming the F3 bobbled the ball into foul therefore Br must be played out .
ISF
This is an anomaly in the rules .
Normally when this happens ie a throw from foul territory the 1st baseman ( or whoever takes the the throw will reverse the base they stand on ie will stand on the safety base and the BR takes the other base .)
However if this didnt happen Br must still head for the safety base .
Now the anomally is if they get hit inside the diamond from a throw to first from fair or foul territory the we have dead ball interference BR out and all runners return to where they were at the pitch .
At last years ISF clinic we had here in NZ Merle Butler was questioned on this and said it is up for discussion for 2005 rule changes .

The ball was first touched in Fair Territory (obviously)
the throw was good but the BR and F4 were both in Fair territory. the BR was hit in the back of the helmet by a good online throw.

I hioep htis helps clear up any confussion.

"BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory."

This is what you wrote in your original posdt. There is nothing obvious by this that the ball was first touched in fair territory. In fact, your statement says it's a foul ball.

Maybe if you learned how to spell, used proper grammar, and how to structure a sentence, you might be understood.

Bob

Bob:

I apologize for not being a Rhodes Scholar. In the future I will keep my questions in oral form and only at a local level. This will insure that I am getting the answers I need and no one else is bothered by trying to learn from my mistakes both on and off the field.

However, in my defense, I do believe it is fairly obvious that the ball was a fair ball. Otherwise everything else described in the play is pointless because it all happened with a dead ball.

As poor as my grammer and spelling are, I am a good enough umpire to know what to do in a foul ball situation and do not need to go to a national forum to ask help on that.

Thanks

Sticky Situation at 1st
 

outathm - sounds like you still have some doubt in your own mind as to whether you would rule the same way again if this was to happen again.

unfortunately for the runner, whilst they may run outside the 3-foot line to avoid INT if they are hit inside the diamond on a good throw (which you indicate it was) then they have created INT. As noted earlier, Merle Butler brought up this very play. His question was how long will it be before the runner becomes the "duck on the pond".

When all said and done, the safety base was introduced to prevent these closer than close plays yet this abnomaly in the rule will need to be addressed at the ISF congress, and most probably the ASA congress also.

PLease advise how you and your partner reasoned the runner would be safe.

Re: Sticky Situation at 1st
 

ASA addressed it a few years back. ISF addresses it in quite a vague manner in 8.2.g.1.note. At least that gives the umpire some room to rule in favor of a runner forced out of the lane.

Anytime a play is coming from foul territory, the 3'/1m lane is extended that distance into fair territory and the players involved may use either base.