3' running lane violation on BB?

[RadioBlue]

Seems to me there's plenty of opinion to go 'round on this topic ... and a lot of it seems to be in direct violation of the rules.

Whether or not a defense is, in our opinion, making a smart play, or not, has no bearing on this play whatsoever. The rules are the rules. If the BR is out of the running lane and she interferes with the throw, she is out.

Another instance where a defense may throw to first is late in the game with a one-run lead or a tie. You have to let the defense play defense. And the offense is obligated to play within the rules.

Remember, the running lane starts 30' from home, so the likelihood is the throw is made prior to the BR getting to the lane.

[topper]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Whether or not a defense is, in our opinion, making a smart play, or not, has no bearing on this play whatsoever. The rules are the rules. If the BR is out of the running lane and she interferes with the throw, she is out.

The definitions section defines what a play is. If the throw, as stated earlier, is to keep the runner from continuing to 2nd rather than recording an out, I'm not sure it meets the criteria of a play. There is no out at 1B while the BR is on his/her way there. I would have nothing.

[AtlUmpSteve]

To the OP request for both NFHS and ASA rulings:

In ASA, I have nothing but a stupid play by F2; and if taught to keep the runner on 1st, an equally stupid coach. It does not meet the ASA definition of making a play, and should be treated as an errant throw, with results whatever happens.

In NFHS, we have a specific ruling (for whatever reason) from the Rules Editor (who has the authority to speak for the Rules Committee) that this is a play; the fact that we don't consider it a legitimate play, isn't material anymore, the ruling is there. Unless you judge this was not a quality throw that could have been caught by the defender at first, or simply a blatent attempt to hit the runner (USC), you must rule this INT in NFHS.

Not because I say so, or even believe so; because Mary Struckhoff says so.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...Not because I say so, or even believe so; because Mary Struckhoff says so.

I don't understand your issue with this ruling, Steve. It is clearly backed up by Rule 4.3-G.1

The Official Rules

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by dakota

i don't understand your issue with this ruling, steve. It is clearly backed up by rule 4.3-g.1

the official rules

:d

Whew...I'm glad I do SP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Whew...I'm glad I do SP.

Why? Same rule applies.