Running Lane / 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.