Running Lane / Interference
 

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

I agree with you that the call was kicked.

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

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.

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

More likely F3, but you are correct.

World Series? Really? What........nevermind ;)

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.

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

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

:D

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.

How so?

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

I want to hear the umpires version before rendering an opinion :D

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.

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: 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.)

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

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.

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


Your statement is false on its face.

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.

Not in judging interference, nor should you.

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

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?

read quote in that message. or the rule quoted.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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! !
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].

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.

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

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.

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.

yes
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.

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.

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

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.

What Steve said.

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 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.

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?

Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

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 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.

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

"Intent" and "actively hindering" are two completely different things, which is what all of these posters are trying to get you to understand. Perhaps if you came off of the defensive, and actually reread what has been posted in response, you will start to understand the "intent" of ASA's removal of the word "intent" from the rule. Several people have clearly explained this.

I think we are looking too deep into this (ok that might be the understatement of the year). But as much as I hate to admit it I see what snorman is saying, just reading the rule it appears that if they cause INT they are out, but I think it is if they DO something that causes INT then you have an out. Now that sounds like the same thing but it is NOT, if they are running the bases as the normally would and the ball hits them in the back I have nothing (besides time when action stops to make sure they are ok :) ) Now if the BR is rounding 2nd heading for 3rd and they adjust the way they are running to try to put themselves inbetween 2nd base (throw from outfield being relayed) and the F5's glove that is moving as it tracks the ball and there is contact then I have INT, the runner did something to cause the INT, he / she moved to get themselves in a position to be hit by the ball thus creating the INT, in the first example I had, he / she was running to the base and the ball contacted them, they didn't do anything to make it happen so there is no INT.

As it was described to me the rule should be called the same way, it just takes out the umpire trying to judge intent, since we can't know what they were thinking, but we can judge what they did.


And if questioned by the coach "Coach in my judgement that was not INT" that is not protestable and there is no rule interp they can bring into the conversation to make it protestable.

In fact, I predicted his exact argument in a commentary I wrote about the removal of "intent" at the time the change was made. Here it is, again,...

We were told to say that too.

Like I said I have told a coach we had no interference when the runner was sliding in to a base and the throw hit her is the back.

Which was my stance when I spoke against the change at every committee meeting I could attend in Colorado Springs. This was such an intriging topic among umpires, it was being discussed at length by a few of us in the hotel lobby, were interupted by a fire alarm and the discussion continued in the parking lot.

I understood their explanations, but saw no reason to remove what they considered extraneous information since it actually provided more precise information in rules where, as we are still experiencing, some umpires need additional guidance.

So we have a fire alarm to blame, lol.