Running Lane / Interference

[sprivitor]

Hi All,

Quick question regarding the running lane.

Situation: Runner at 2nd, no outs. BR bunts to 2nd base side of mound. F4 fields the ball and makes a clean throw to F1. BR beats the throw. BR was outside the lane while running. She beat the throw out. Throw was a good straight shot to F1 and F1 was not impeded by the BR being out of the lane.

PU ruled intereference. I requested clarification. He said that no matter if the runner impeded the throw or not, she is out because she in fair territory and not in the running lane. I asked if that meant a line drive to center field meant a BR would be out in that case. He said that only a hit in the general area of the pitcher/infield would he call that. I thought that the interference should be called, for this play, only if in the act of receiving the ball - either by direct contact of the BR with the ball or actual impedence of F1 receiving the ball occurred.

This was in a Regional game that will ultimately determine who goes to the World Series. We won the game, but, in my opinion, I felt it was the wrong call. What do you think?

Thanks
Steve

[mick]

I agree with you that the call was kicked.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sprivitor

Hi All,

Quick question regarding the running lane.

Situation: Runner at 2nd, no outs. BR bunts to 2nd base side of mound.

If there is a mound, you are on the wrong field.

F4 fields the ball and makes a clean throw to F1. BR beats the throw. BR was outside the lane while running. She beat the throw out. Throw was a good straight shot to F1 and F1 was not impeded by the BR being out of the lane.

F1 has no involvement in a running lane violation. The violation is for INT with the defender's ability to receive the ball at 1B.

PU ruled intereference. I requested clarification. He said that no matter if the runner impeded the throw or not, she is out because she in fair territory and not in the running lane.

The umpire either needs a few more good clinics or is an idiot.

I asked if that meant a line drive to center field meant a BR would be out in that case. He said that only a hit in the general area of the pitcher/infield would he call that. I thought that the interference should be called, for this play, only if in the act of receiving the ball - either by direct contact of the BR with the ball or actual impedence of F1 receiving the ball occurred.

More likely F3, but you are correct.

This was in a Regional game that will ultimately determine who goes to the World Series.

World Series? Really? What........nevermind

[kcg NC2Ablu]

the same rule applies as if its "regular interference" If the throw or player are impeded in anyway then you can have interference. the difference is the offensive player has no right to be in fair ground for the last 30 ft so if in the umpires judgement the offensive player impeded the ability of the first base player to catch or make a play ( catch and swipe ...etc) with the ball bybeing outside of the running lane then the runner has commited int. and should thus a dead ball and out. This is an overall prospective not speciffic to you but these rules of thumb can help when seeing the whole situation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by sprivitor

Hi All,

Quick question regarding the running lane.

Situation: Runner at 2nd, no outs. BR bunts to 2nd base side of mound. F4 fields the ball and makes a clean throw to F1. BR beats the throw. BR was outside the lane while running. She beat the throw out. Throw was a good straight shot to F1 and F1 was not impeded by the BR being out of the lane.

PU ruled intereference. I requested clarification. He said that no matter if the runner impeded the throw or not, she is out because she in fair territory and not in the running lane. I asked if that meant a line drive to center field meant a BR would be out in that case. He said that only a hit in the general area of the pitcher/infield would he call that. I thought that the interference should be called, for this play, only if in the act of receiving the ball - either by direct contact of the BR with the ball or actual impedence of F1 receiving the ball occurred.

This was in a Regional game that will ultimately determine who goes to the World Series. We won the game, but, in my opinion, I felt it was the wrong call. What do you think?

Thanks
Steve

So why didn't you protest? That's not a judgment call and it sounds like it was an important game.
________
VAPORIZER VOLCANO

[Skahtboi]

Yup. The situation given in the OP is definitely a protestable situation.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

World Series? Really? What........nevermind

[snorman75]

OK, you might have phrased your situation wrong, BUT we all got the meaning.

Were you using double first bases? Did the girl use the double first? I wonder if the ump was trying to call your runner out for not using the double first and mixed it up in his mind. Which he missed too, since it is a live ball appeal.

I do not have the rules in front of me, but I am GUESSING the ump got the call right. I also know no ump in his right mind should ever call that. Unless he had warn your team a number of times about doing it.

I know I got called for this in baseball a number of times. I also knew I was trying to scare the first baseman into a error, and so did the umps. Hence the call, I had been warned.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

I do not have the rules in front of me, but I am GUESSING the ump got the call right....

How so?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Dakota

How so?

Maybe snorman75 envisions F4 fielding the ball on the first base line ?

[Dholloway1962]

I want to hear the umpires version before rendering an opinion

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

How so?

Like I said I did not have the rules in front of me. But to my surprise 8.2.E does state there needs to be interference and it is not a black and white situation.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Like I said I did not have the rules in front of me. But to my surprise 8.2.E does state there needs to be interference and it is not a black and white situation.

Suffice it to say I'm surprised that you were surprised. Or, maybe not.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Suffice it to say I'm surprised that you were surprised. Or, maybe not.

So, I am to assume you expect every ump to know by verse every rule? Have I read 8.2.E sure once a year.When I read over all the rules in March. Do I study it and commit it to memory, no. I only have so much space in my head. I know what I am going to call, there needs to be some form of interference.

I was surprise the rules did not have it black and white. I was not surprise about the snide comment.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

So, I am to assume you expect every ump to know by verse every rule? Have I read 8.2.E sure once a year.When I read over all the rules in March. Do I study it and commit it to memory, no. I only have so much space in my head. I know what I am going to call, there needs to be some form of interference.

I was surprise the rules did not have it black and white. I was not surprise about the snide comment.

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:

He said that no matter if the runner impeded the throw or not, she is out because she in fair territory and not in the running lane.

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.