Running Lane

[IRISHMAFIA]

ASA Rule Clarifications 2007

Three-Foot Running Lane
Recent changes to the Three-Foot Running Lane rule by other softball codes have prompted many umpires and coaches to ask the ASA for a clarification or interpretation of what constitutes a batter-runner being “in the lane” or “out of the lane”.
The ASA has always taught that the three-foot running lane starts at ground level and extends straight up on both sides. After the batter becomes the batter-runner and they reach the start of the three-foot running lane, it is their responsibility to run inside the lane on the way to first base so as not to interfere with the throw to first base. However, an exception is made when the ball is being thrown from the foul side of first base. In this case, the three-foot running lane transfers to the fair side of the foul line where the runner is protected while running to the white portion of first base. In ASA, if the thrown ball hits a body part that is inside the three-foot running lane, there is no interference. In other words, the umpire should judge the ball in relationship to the body part it strikes. If that body part is inside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane there is no violation, play on. Conversely, if the body part is outside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane and is struck with the thrown ball, or the batter-runner interferes with the defense taking the throw while outside the three-foot running lane, the batter-runner is guilty of interference. The ball should be declared dead, the batter-runner should be called out and all runners should be returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference (Rule 8, Section 2 E).

[jmkupka]

The clarification makes it murkier (for me anyway, I'm easily murked).

It states that the running lane switches to the fair side when the throw is coming from foul ground (1st base side). Seems to indicate that the conventional running lane no longer affords protection from INT in that case.

Our previous conversations have concluded that, in that case, the B/R MAY use fair ground with impunity, but the conventional RL still provides absolute protection (not counting intentional of course)... I like that interp.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

The clarification makes it murkier (for me anyway, I'm easily murked).

The clarification is poorly worded. The rule involves INT with a throw, but always has been INT with a defender's ability to receive a throw at 1B.

It states that the running lane switches to the fair side when the throw is coming from foul ground (1st base side). Seems to indicate that the conventional running lane no longer affords protection from INT in that case.

Again, poorly worded. Since the inception of the double base @ first and the BR's allowance to use the white base on certain occasions, the runner lane has been EXPANDED (not transferred) for 3' into the fair side of the baseline basically creating a 6' lane for the BR who may choose to use either base in those given occasions.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The clarification is poorly worded. The rule involve INT with a throw, but always has been INT with a defender's ability to receive a throw at 1B.


Again, poorly worded. Since the inception of the double base @ first and the BR's allowance to use the white base on certain occasions, the runner lane has been EXPANDED (not transferred) for 3' into the fair side of the baseline basically creating a 6' lane for the BR who may choose to use either base in those given occasions.

And as long as we are talking about poorly worded, I don't see any substantive difference between 1) where the ball is located at the moment of contact (just like we judge fair/foul, etc.), and 2) where the body part it contacted is located at the moment of contact, as they relate to fair/foul and in/out of the running lane.

What is the point or value in creating a different frame of reference?

[chapmaja]

In reading these reply's I see a lot of people talking about the running lane as if the OP says she was hit with a throw. I don't read that in the OP. I read the OP as if she is hit with a batter ball (bunt down the line).

At that point we need to look at where the ball it her. If it has hit her in fair territory we have a potential for an out for interference. We also have the potential for nothing depending on the circumstances of the play.

I have witnessed a play where the batter bunted down the first base line. The bunt got by the first baseman charging in, but due to spin on the bunt, came over and hit the runner. In this case, if no fielder had an opportunity to make a play, and the ball hit the runner in fair territory, we have a fair ball and nothing more (the ball passed a fielder and nobody else had an opportunity to make a play). In the play I saw the ball actually hit her in foul territory and was untouched, so it was a foul ball.

[jmkupka]

good point... however, when I resurrected this (2007) thread last week, I was going on the assumption there was a throw from HP area.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

good point... however, when I resurrected this (2007) thread last week, I was going on the assumption there was a throw from HP area.

That assumption is irrelevant to the rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA Rule Clarifications 2007

Three-Foot Running Lane
Recent changes to the Three-Foot Running Lane rule by other softball codes have prompted many umpires and coaches to ask the ASA for a clarification or interpretation of what constitutes a batter-runner being “in the lane” or “out of the lane”.
The ASA has always taught that the three-foot running lane starts at ground level and extends straight up on both sides. After the batter becomes the batter-runner and they reach the start of the three-foot running lane, it is their responsibility to run inside the lane on the way to first base so as not to interfere with the throw to first base. However, an exception is made when the ball is being thrown from the foul side of first base. In this case, the three-foot running lane transfers to the fair side of the foul line where the runner is protected while running to the white portion of first base. In ASA, if the thrown ball hits a body part that is inside the three-foot running lane, there is no interference. In other words, the umpire should judge the ball in relationship to the body part it strikes. If that body part is inside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane there is no violation, play on. Conversely, if the body part is outside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane and is struck with the thrown ball, or the batter-runner interferes with the defense taking the throw while outside the three-foot running lane, the batter-runner is guilty of interference. The ball should be declared dead, the batter-runner should be called out and all runners should be returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference (Rule 8, Section 2 E).

#1) So, a throw striking a body part which is outside the vertical plane is INT, even if the BR does not interfere with the fielder taking the throw.
I thought we always said (knew?) that interference had to be with the fielder, not just the ball. (including the endless quality throw discussions)

#2) Also, just having both feet in the RL does not avoid an INT call.

Speaking ASA, of course.