Fla-UCLA
 

Anyone see the running lane violation call? Good call or not?

yeah...
 

I was wanting opinions on that too...

looked like a good call to me .....

Bad call. There was not any interference.

Here are some opinions; http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...;f=13;t=001039

Replay to me shows runner definitely out of the lane, throw was not a "quality" throw, runner seemed to beat the throw, is all the opinion I have.

This was a judgement call by an excellent plate umpire. Runner is out.

Why?

I was wondering that too Why no interference tex? there is no double bag inNCAA and the br is required to be in the running lane. In not doing so the br hindered f3 in making a catch on a ball that possibly could have put her out.... sounds like interference to me

Possibly put her out? The BR beat the throw by 2 steps. She was on the line and the throw was to the foul side of the bag. IMO over officiating. bad call.

When I watched the play and the replays and my own replays, I agreed on outside the lane, but the runner beat the throw.

As disappointed as I have been to have a baseball commentator instead of a softball expert, Kruk was the one in the booth who pointed that out as well as the other play about the ball hitting the bat not the batter.

I agree with Cecil. After watching the replays, it appears to me that the call was incorrect.

However, in real time, on the field, I can understand why the call was made. She was was in the right postion and called what she saw.

I didnt agree with the call she made because she was yelling for the infraction before the throw was even made. She didnt wait for the play to progress to see if the throw would even be on time or not. The player most certainly stepped on the bag before the throw ever got there, which made the questionable lane violation mute. Not only that, the throw wasnt even straight up the line. The bunt had traveled a few feet down the 3rd base line and there was an angle on the throw, the catcher just plain missed.

There was a similar call the day before, and in that case it was obvious and the correct call was made. The girl was at least 3' inside the lane even when she got to 1st and the throw hit her in the helmet.

ok to all that disagree... here is what I have to say: The runner was outside the 3ft lane. The runner also collided with a fielder making a play on the ball in the space the she is allowed to legally occupy where as the runner was not in the area she is leagally aloud to occupy. sure you can speculate that the br "would have beat the throw by two steps" but the rule doesnt say if the offensive player who causes the interference would have been safe anyway ignore the interference. The dead ball call could not be avoided f3 had a play and that play was a potential to catch the ball and swipe tag br. so per the NCAA rule book the runner being played on is out and that means BR had the likely potential in that case to be swiped tagged via the off line throw and by colliding with f3 when the br should have been at least in the space she is allowed to occupy (aka 3ft lane) and was not in that space which hindered f3's play on the throw which is interference. Now if F3 is moving to catch a "non attainable" ball which pulls her into the 3ft lane and thus obstructs the runner there is obs(the Non attainable throw would be like a throw to rf way out of any effort from f3). and even then its morelikely a No-Call because they are both trying to do what they are supposed to do as respective members of the offense and defense.

Is it true before you can call interference there has to be an out that can be made? If the runner beat the throw how can it be interference?

Well as my user name says I call ASA and FED so I am not sure about NCAA, but what bothers me about this call is the following. I agree that runner should have been in the running lane sooner, if the throw would have been earlier then I would have agreed with it. BUT when the throw was made and when the INT was judged the runner had 1 foot on the line(in the running lane) and the other on the base, which the runner is allowed to come into fair territory when they get close to the base, got to in order to touch the base as it is in fair territory. So that is why I can't see INT here. I also (again I am using FED and ASA) say that in that case you would have OBS on that play not INT, the fielder did not have control of the ball when they hindered the runner. Again that is based on the angle I saw was that when the contact was made BR had one foot on line and other on base.....again JMO.

How would others rule this if it was ASA or FED? Is there something different from these two codes that makes this a good call in NCAA???

The oppertunity for a swipe tag was there..... the throw wasnt that far behind it was off line the runner out of the lane and the oppertunity of the swipe tag leaves the interference wide open to be called because the offense is violating a rule