U3K Play
 

Don't think I've seen this before... U3K, batter busts out of the righty's box, stumbles & falls just beyond the lefty's box, gets back up just in time to get hit in the back of the helmet with the throw from F2.

My partner has a no-call, slight grumbling from the DC. but had me thinking about ASA 8.2.F.3 (no, couldn't quote that line and verse at the time;))

She clearly hadn't reached the 3' lane yet, but that's not mentioned in this rule.

Any comments would be appreciated.

I've got nothing.

Let me clarify what I meant. The BR, despite having lost her balance, was doing what she was supposed to be doing. She did not commit an "act" of interference, which, to me, means doing something she wasn't supposed to do. Had she darted left or right, threw up her hands, swatted at the ball, or something else along those lines, I would then have INT.

However, despite the fact that she embarrassed herself on the field, she did nothing wrong. I won't call that INT unless I see her do something she's not supposed to do.

If she was that far away from the 3' running lane, the catcher should have had enough time to make a good throw. I blame the catcher on this one.

simmilar sit.
 

I had a left handed slapper bunt a ball to third and then run into F3 who was crashing in hard on the bunt, in fair territory. I had obstruction but maybe I should of had nothing. My reasoning was that A) There was no interference because F3 wasn't fielding the ball. B) Batter Runner didn't have to be in the running lane yet. C) F3 didn't have possession of the ball and obstructed the BR trying to advance to 1b. Is obstruction the right call in this sit.? I agree with ncasa ump on the original post of this tread BTW.:confused:

Obstruction is absolutely the right call.
Can't think of where a no call could even be considered.

If the DC feels cheated out of an out, maybe he should have been grumbling at F2 for throwing to 1B instead of tagging the BR as she lay splayed out on the ground in the batter's box.