Running Lane
 

Batter bunts ball down 1st base line. She is running on line not inside line, ball hits her in back, is she out for interference.

The line itself is inside the lane.

Depends on rule set, but on line is inside, so not out if you mean the left foot.

I agree with the others. If the left foot is on the line, then there is no interference.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but
 

Referring to Dakota's comment:
"The line itself is inside the lane."

If a ball is touching the line, it is considered in fair territory.
If a runner's foot is in fair territory, how can he also be considered in the running lane?

It is a different rule.
The running lane is bound by the sides of the lane, including the bounds.
Fair territory is bound by the fair/foul lines, fair includes the bounds.

Speaking ASA

To start, the call isn't INT just because the ball hit the BR. The call would be INT only if the ball hitting the BR prevented a defender from receiving the ball @ 1B in an attempt to retire the BR while not inside the running lane.

If the BR is only partially within the lane, the rule is applied by where on the BR's body (including uniform) the ball made contact.

If the ball contacted the BR in/over the running lane, there is no INT without an actual act by the BR to INT.

If the ball contacted ANY part of the BR's body outside/not over the running lane, INT should be ruled if it prevented the defender from receiving the throw to put out the BR.

Other rule sets are different.

Interesting, Mike, so like in a fair/foul call, it's the position of the ball, not the position of the player (in this case, the B/R) that determines the call (at least in ASA)...

Just to clarify... both feet completely in the running lane; shoulders, arms, whatever, extending over fair territory, gets hit with the throw.
It's actually quite likely, if the throw is from foul ground (1st base side) and F3 sets up fair (DMF3)...

BR in the lane cannot be INT unless intentional.

Mike said the other side of the coin:
"If the BR is only partially within the lane, the rule is applied by where on the BR's body (including uniform) the ball made contact. "

Doesn't matter where the player is, or where on her body it hits her.

Where was the BALL when it hit the player?

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).

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.

#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.

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.
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?