Ever seen the BR run into the 3rd baseman on a bunt up the 1st base line?
 

I could not believe what I was seeing. 3rd baseman playing 2/3 down the line. Girl squares early to bunt, 3rd baseman crashes to the plate. Bunt goes up
1st base line and BR get a late jump out of the box. 3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter while running to 1st.

I had to shake my head when it happened and then say to myself she is out.

Very strange play that I don't know if I will ever see again.

Are there more details? Why is she out?

The "3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter" looks like INT to me.

Bingo, BR runs into 3rd baseman trying to field the bunt, she is out!!!!!!!!!:D

What part of this are you missing, Wade?

If the B/R is doing nothing out of the ordinary, exiting the box normally and starting up the 1B line, Im not letting the 3d baseman 'crash' her and getting a cheap out.

Im not saying that's what happened here (not enough detail), but you can't let fielders start tackling B/Rs as they exit the box.

No,but...
 

I don't need anymore information than what was presented. The 3rd baseman was fielding a bunt. The batter ran into her while in the act of fielding a fair batted ball. OUT! Its not "ordinary" for the runner to run into any defensive player fielding a batted ball. By the way, she didn't exit the box normally. She hesitated. Not that that really matters to me in this case. She still has to avoid F5.

I dont automatically have INT on this play. You have a crashing fielder and a running runner. (presuming F5 was most likely to make the play, thus ruling out OBS).

This very well could be nothing IMO. It could be INT, but it sure as heck could be nothing. This is not automatic.

Would this fall under the same scenario as the catcher coming out and having a "run-in" with the BR who is headed to 1B on a bunt? Both players appear to be within their "rights" to be where they are. Neither player did anything out of the ordinary.

I'm siding with Wade that one could make a case for either no call or INT. Not an automatic out.

No, not IMO
 

The catcher and batter scenario, IMO, is in a different category. Although the rule book clearly states "Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does nto mean that obstruction or interference has occurred." It goes on to use a right handed batter laying down a bunt and the catcher scenario implied by your comment. But it seems to clear to me that this scenario is unique in that the catcher is playing behind the batter and the batter does not have a good view of the catcher. The OP seems more in line with a R1 interfering with F3 on a ground ball. R1 clearly could see the fielder and should have avoided F3. In the OP
B1 should have seen F5. Also, you seem to be overlooking that B1 got a late start out of the box. She did something out of the ordinary. I'm sure her coach wasn't happy about the late start.

Well.. I'd say a F5 crashing in front of a runner on a bunt up 1B line is not ordinary... so...

This one I'd like to see. By the description I got F5 crashing right in front of the box as runner leaving the box..

This sounds an awful lot like the BR/F2 scenario "doing what they are supposed to be doing" and the intent behind "train wreck" in that scenario.

That's not what the OP said
 

The OP said that F5 crashed the plate, which is what every F5 does when the batter squares around to bunt. That's normal. The batter was late leaving the box. That's not "doing what they are supposed to be doing". F5 was fielding a batted ball along first base line. By the description I don't see F5 being on top of the batter. She was probably moving laterally toward the first base line. Runner has to avoid! You also don't seem to think that the delay of the runner is significant. I do.

The delay in the runner leaving the box play a huge part in this and was even part of the conversation between me and the head coach between innings. IMO and my partners the situation was the right call.

This is a very strange play indeed. I would have had to witness this myself before I made a ruling.

The delay in running might have caused the BR to be behind the fielder, but why is that relevant from a rule standpoint? It certainly does not read like holding back to set up intentional hindrance.