Running Lane / Interference

[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.

[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 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 mick

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

I have heard opinions, no facts. I even agree with the opinions, but still no facts.

[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.

[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.