Running Lane / Interference

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

....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. .

Are you saying there is a rule in place where a fielder can throw at, and hit, the runner's head and the runner is out ? ...Ouch! !

Originally Posted by snorman75

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.

With a play in front of the plate, if the catcher fields the ball and throws to first base, the runner will be deemed to be interfering if the runner is not in the lane, because the runner may be impeding the throw..

With a play in front of the second baseman, the runner inside the lane will not be impeding a throw from the second baseman [the path of the thrown ball would exclude the path of the batter/runner].

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by snorman75

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.

Uh, no, the runner is not out unless the runner did something that could be an act of INT. Simply being hit with a thrown ball is absolutely nothing.

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.

The reason most umpires would not call that interference is because it isn't interference.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Uh, no, the runner is not out unless the runner did something that could be an act of INT. Simply being hit with a thrown ball is absolutely nothing.

Pre 2007 yes, post 2007 nope. No act is needed. Will I call it like that NO. But look, it no longer says anything about the intent of the base runner on being hit with a thrown ball. It is now, wait for it bringing it all back together, black and white.

I do ask, do not just way no it is not, please show me anything or another way you could read 8.7.J.3. I know our board tried, with little luck. I feel it is a rule written one way and called another.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

Are you saying there is a rule in place where a fielder can throw at, and hit, the runner's head and the runner is out ? ...Ouch! !

Yes, and I have told a coach to their face, that yes they had removed intent on the interference play, and no I did not see the ball hit the base runner, in the back of the head.

Has anyone EVER enforced interference on a thrown ball lets say for a tag play were the ball hit the runner in the back? all other things being kosher.

Originally Posted by mick

With a play in front of the plate, if the catcher fields the ball and throws to first base, the runner will be deemed to be interfering if the runner is not in the lane, because the runner may be impeding the throw..

yes

Originally Posted by mick

With a play in front of the second baseman, the runner inside the lane will not be impeding a throw from the second baseman [the path of the thrown ball would exclude the path of the batter/runner].

But do they interfere with the first baseman receiving the ball?

Ball thrown to first lets have fun and say center field pulling first baseman off bag toward home. BR in fair ground hits the first baseman's glove before the catch. You have interference, BR's contact, and you have BR out of the running lane. OUT.

[Dakota]

This thread is way beyond rational. Let's see... I point out the running lane rule never had intent as part of the rule, so a completely different rule is cited as somehow being relevant, and now we are discussing dodge ball.

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who completely ignores context and meaning.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This thread is way beyond rational. Let's see... I point out the running lane rule never had intent as part of the rule, so a completely different rule is cited as somehow being relevant, and now we are discussing dodge ball.

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who completely ignores context and meaning.

Ya, we stay on one subject with ever thread.

P.S. might want to read posts, intent was never cited as any part if the running lane, it was used as a example of the ASA rules moving to more black and white calls., and then the conversion went from there.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Ball thrown to first lets have fun and say center field pulling first baseman off bag toward home. BR in fair ground hits the first baseman's glove before the catch. You have interference, BR's contact, and you have BR out of the running lane. OUT.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to call obstruction here. F3 is impeding the BR without possession of the ball. Certainly not interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Pre 2007 yes, post 2007 nope. No act is needed. Will I call it like that NO. But look, it no longer says anything about the intent of the base runner on being hit with a thrown ball. It is now, wait for it bringing it all back together, black and white.

I do ask, do not just way no it is not, please show me anything or another way you could read 8.7.J.3. I know our board tried, with little luck. I feel it is a rule written one way and called another.

Sounds to me like both you and your board need some understanding farther up the food chain. Try asking your State UIC. (Or listen to the State UIC who is telling you differently.)

What you are missing is the definition of interference, an "act". The baserunner simply running the bases hasn't committed an "act" of interference on a thrown ball if the throw hits the runner; that is simply a bad throw. A baserunner that throws up an arm or alters his running path to knowingly block the throw has committed a specific act which would be interference. You have to understand the difference to understand the rule.

While the word "actively" isn't used in this rule, you should apply the same implication as the batter in the batter's box. Standing there, or doing what a batter does to hit (or check the swing) the ball isn't interference of the catcher; the batter has the right to the batter's box to do what batters do. A seperate act that "actively" hinders the catcher is interference; you do not attempt to consider if the batter intended to interfere, you judge if the batter did something specific that isn't part of batting, and if it did interfere.

Use the same logic and interpretation with a baserunner, who certainly has every right to advance in the basepath of his/her choice. Running the bases, sliding, etc., are all actions that a baserunner legally can do. A separate act that "actively" interferes with a throw is interference, without attempting to determine intent; you judge if the runner did something specific that interfered, not simply running bases in a normal and legal manner. There must be an "act" to interfere when someone has the right to be there doing what they are doing.

In contrast, the rules also define acts that, by themselves, constitute interference. Being hit by a batted ball that hasn't passed an infielder, failure of a runner or coach to yield to a fielder fielding a batted ball, running outside the running lane and impeding the player attempting to catch the ball at first base, running into the fielder on the white bag; these don't require separate "acts" because they are defined as interference (when appropriate; yes, there are specific rules and exclusions). Unspecific acts that may impede or hinder must be "acts" to be interference.

[azbigdawg]

What Steve said.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Ya, we stay on one subject with ever thread.

P.S. might want to read posts, intent was never cited as any part if the running lane, it was used as a example of the ASA rules moving to more black and white calls., and then the conversion went from there.

Listen, snorman, you brought up intent as justification for your not knowing the rule. I merely pointed out that you apparently did not understand the rule even before the intent issue, since the rule under discussion never, ever, included intent.

But, since you apparently don't understand interference in general, I guess it is no surprise you are confused.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I'm pretty sure I'm going to call obstruction here. F3 is impeding the BR without possession of the ball. Certainly not interference.

I hope not, you have the 2 parts of the running lane violated. the BR is not in the lane, and there is interference with F3 catching the ball. It does not matter were the throw is coming from as long as there is a play.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Listen, snorman, you brought up intent as justification for your not knowing the rule. I merely pointed out that you apparently did not understand the rule even before the intent issue, since the rule under discussion never, ever, included intent.

But, since you apparently don't understand interference in general, I guess it is no surprise you are confused.

I truly have no idea what your train of thought is?

I know there is no intent in the running lane rule. I never said there was. You see I used a change ASA made in another rule, intent on interference on a thrown ball, as a example of rules becoming more black and white.

Now I am sure you are trying to bate me, but I really am perplexed why?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

I truly have no idea what your train of thought is?

Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

[mick]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Now I am sure you are trying to bate me, but I really am perplexed why?

bate:
transitive verb
1: to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain

snorman75,
Several respondents are try to bate you, because the information you are posting is incorrect and indefensible.
The purpose of the forum is to help, not hinder.
mick

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sounds to me like both you and your board need some understanding farther up the food chain. Try asking your State UIC. (Or listen to the State UIC who is telling you differently.)

What you are missing is the definition of interference, an "act". The baserunner simply running the bases hasn't committed an "act" of interference on a thrown ball if the throw hits the runner; that is simply a bad throw. A baserunner that throws up an arm or alters his running path to knowingly block the throw has committed a specific act which would be interference. You have to understand the difference to understand the rule.

While the word "actively" isn't used in this rule, you should apply the same implication as the batter in the batter's box. Standing there, or doing what a batter does to hit (or check the swing) the ball isn't interference of the catcher; the batter has the right to the batter's box to do what batters do. A seperate act that "actively" hinders the catcher is interference; you do not attempt to consider if the batter intended to interfere, you judge if the batter did something specific that isn't part of batting, and if it did interfere.

Use the same logic and interpretation with a baserunner, who certainly has every right to advance in the basepath of his/her choice. Running the bases, sliding, etc., are all actions that a baserunner legally can do. A separate act that "actively" interferes with a throw is interference, without attempting to determine intent; you judge if the runner did something specific that interfered, not simply running bases in a normal and legal manner. There must be an "act" to interfere when someone has the right to be there doing what they are doing.

In contrast, the rules also define acts that, by themselves, constitute interference. Being hit by a batted ball that hasn't passed an infielder, failure of a runner or coach to yield to a fielder fielding a batted ball, running outside the running lane and impeding the player attempting to catch the ball at first base, running into the fielder on the white bag; these don't require separate "acts" because they are defined as interference (when appropriate; yes, there are specific rules and exclusions). Unspecific acts that may impede or hinder must be "acts" to be interference.

I agree with everything you said, I call it that way, but is it right?

I am sorry but I disagree, and there is the rule and I have 10 questions form the 2007 NYS high School softball exam, that tell me I better not take intent into account when calling interference.