Running Lane / Interference

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Not knowing that a BR is not required to actually run in the running lane seems pretty basic to me. It is not a violation for the BR to be out of the running lane. It is only a violation if, by being out of the running lane, the BR interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B. It seems unlikely that the BR interfered with the catch if the BR arrived before the ball.

The OP said the ruling was:

You said you believed that to be correct.

Not even close. It is not a matter of memorizing the rule word for word, but knowing a pretty basic rule about a situation that you can expect to occur.

I am lost. Since we agree, like the whole time.

1. I said I do not have the book with me, but I assumed ASA had it black and white on the running lane. Since they have been moving more toward that, like taking intention out of interference.

2. I then read the rule book and was surprised it was not black and white.

The WHOLE time I said I would never call a runner out for out of the baseline without interference. Even if the book had it black and white "I" still would need some type of interference to call it.

P.S. a BR for sure could interfere even if they beat the throw. Simple one, throw from second to first, but off line toward home. BR in fair ground, which makes the first baseman flinch or even come off the bag to catch it. The second that first baseman flinches because of that BR being in fair ground I do not care were the ball is you have interference. (needs to be in running lane is assumed.)

[Dakota]

Intent never was in this rule. There is no way the OP explanation could ever be correct outside of a sand lot.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

The second that first baseman flinches because of that BR being in fair ground I do not care were the ball is you have interference. (needs to be in running lane is assumed.)

Not me.
Real F3 does not flinch.
Fake F3 could flinch with the runner 10' from the bag.
How can you tell a real flinch from a fake flinch?
Methinks you are making this too hard.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Simple one, throw from second to first, but off line toward home. BR in fair ground, which makes the first baseman flinch or even come off the bag to catch it. The second that first baseman flinches because of that BR being in fair ground [I]I do not care were the ball is[/I] you have interference. (needs to be in running lane is assumed.)

I suppose you have never heard of the concept, "quality throw."


Your statement is false on its face.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Intent never was in this rule. There is no way the OP explanation could ever be correct outside of a sand lot.

2006 ASA 8.7.J.3 runner is out when "intentionally (interferes) with a thrown ball."

2007 ASA 8.7.J.3 runner is out when "(interferes) with a thrown ball."

I know this was a HUGE P.O.E. in our board.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by LMan

I suppose you have never heard of the concept, "quality throw."


Your statement is false on its face.

Not in judging interference, nor should you.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

2006 ASA 8.7.J.3 runner is out when "intentionally (interferes) with a thrown ball."

2007 ASA 8.7.J.3 runner is out when "(interferes) with a thrown ball."

I know this was a HUGE P.O.E. in our board.

snorman75,
Are you still talking about the *running lane*?

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

Not me.
Real F3 does not flinch.
Fake F3 could flinch with the runner 10' from the bag.
How can you tell a real flinch from a fake flinch?
Methinks you are making this too hard.

You know if a butterfly flaps his wings in China...

Yes, I am not going to call it if the runner is 10 feet away. Lets be honest most of the time there is going to be contact and it will be a easy call.

I have to ask, what are you talking about in a fake flinch?

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

snorman75,
Are you still talking about the *running lane*?

read quote in that message. or the rule quoted.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

You know if a butterfly flaps his wings in China...
....
I have to ask, what are you talking about in a fake flinch?

Don't know the flutterby saying, but if F3 knows you are calling BR out if F3 flinches, you'll see many an unwarranted flinch.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

read quote in that message. or the rule quoted.

Since I am not a real softball umpire, I am trying to understand the context of your quotes.

Intentionally interfering, or incidentally interfering, surely applies to all bases.

Is there a specific case where running inside the lane to first base is interference when the ball is thrown on a path that excludes the BR?

Thanks.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

Don't know the flutterby saying, but if F3 knows you are calling BR out if F3 flinches, you'll see many an unwarranted flinch.

OK, trust me the only way they know if they read this.

I do not think I have really ever called it on a flinch. Like I said earlier there is contact 99.9% of the time. I am still waiting for that 0.1%.

Like I said earlier I personally got called for it as a runner in baseball without any contact. I would try to make the first baseman flinch, and the umps, we had the same crew all summer at home, knew it too and called me a few times on it. I think it never really worked, and I was out anyway the 3-4 times they called it, they just wanted to send a message for me to cool it.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

OK, trust me the only way they know if they read this.

I do not think I have really ever called it on a flinch. Like I said earlier there is contact 99.9% of the time. I am still waiting for that 0.1%.

Like I said earlier I personally got called for it as a runner in baseball without any contact. I would try to make the first baseman flinch, and the umps, we had the same crew all summer at home, knew it too and called me a few times on it. I think it never really worked, and I was out anyway the 3-4 times they called it, they just wanted to send a message for me to cool it.

I understand. Having played first base for 20 some years, there were prolly 3 guys that I remember trying that. Twice it was my ankle which was away from the bag cuz I always held the edge. Umps never said anything, but I did.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

Since I am not a real softball umpire, I am trying to understand the context of your quotes.

Intentionally interfering, or incidentally interfering, surely applies to all bases.

First, intention on interference was taken out, but few umps ever changed how they call it. I have been told. That with the change in the rule, a runner sliding into third and a thrown ball hits them in the back of the head when they start their slide, they are out. It does not matter anymore that there was no intent to interfere. I have never called it like that. I will not speak for anyone else, but I think few will call interference like that without intent.

Originally Posted by mick

Is there a specific case where running inside the lane to first base is interference when the ball is thrown on a path that excludes the BR?

Thanks.

OK, lets look at this.
1. BR inside running lane
2. I do not get what you mean by "excludes the BR"

I will tell you that while in the running lane there is not much, if anything, that will get the BR called out for interference on a thrown ball.


Also with the double first base I know I have found there is little problem with the running lane. If they are inside the lane they are more likely to run to the white section and it is a easy appeal play.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

I understand. Having played first base for 20 some years, there were prolly 3 guys that I remember trying that. Twice it was my ankle which was away from the bag cuz I always held the edge. Umps never said anything, but I did.

I also played first so I would NEVER go for the ankles or feet. I would bend the rules (OK, break), but not play dirty.