Running lane vs base path

[Tru_in_Blu]

I've been reading the discussions on the running lane violations in another thread.

If we turn the corner on that discussion and have a runner returning to first base, when can we have interference?

Sample scenario:

ASA fast, modified, or slow pitch with a runner on 1B and less than 2 outs. Batter hits a looper up the middle. R1 doesn't know if F6 will make a catch or not and is caught in "no-man's land". F6 does indeed make a catch and is now in alignment with second and first base. F6 may attempt a throw to F3 to double up R1. R1, having now seen a catch tries to return to 1st base. While returning, with back to F6, R1 puts their hands on their head to avoid getting bonked.

If R1 is hit by F6's throw, do we have interference? Assume for sake of argument that R1 returned directly to 1st base from the point where they saw the catch. Also assume there was no arm flailing, just an attempt by the runner to avoid getting hit in the head. When R1 returned to first base, s/he does not know if F6 actually made a throw or not.

Secondary consideration: since all players are in alignment, F6, R1, and F3, F3's position while receiving the ball cannot hinder R1.

Thanx for any discussion.

[BretMan]

First, I would say to totally forget about using any concept of "the running lane" when making a call on a runner already on base. The running lane concept applies only to a batter-runner on the initial play at first base.

For a runner to be guilty of interference with a thrown ball, the runner must "actively hinder" the ball. Yes, the word "intentionally" was removed from this rule a few years ago. But that was really just an editorial change to placate those that argued it is impossible for an umpire to truly know a player's "intent". For all practical purposes, we judge and rule on this play just as we always did.

Runners have a right to run the bases. And where else would you expect a runner to be when returning to a base than straight directly into it? If that's all he was doing, then it's not interference if the throw happens to hit him.

As for the second part...what you seem to be describing is the old rule from years ago that allowed a fielder to impede a runner if the fielder was in position and about to receive a throw. It hasn't been that way for awhile. Whether or not the fielder "hinders" (ie: obstructs) a runner depends on whether the fielder does or does not possess the ball. There is no longer any allowance made for a fielder "about to receive" a throw. The fielder either has the ball or doesn't have the ball.

Even if in position to catch the throw, it's entirely possible that the fielder could hinder the returning runner- if the hinderance occurs before the fielder possesses the ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

ASA fast, modified, or slow pitch with a runner on 1B and less than 2 outs. Batter hits a looper up the middle. R1 doesn't know if F6 will make a catch or not and is caught in "no-man's land". F6 does indeed make a catch and is now in alignment with second and first base. F6 may attempt a throw to F3 to double up R1. R1, having now seen a catch tries to return to 1st base. While returning, with back to F6, R1 puts their hands on their head to avoid getting bonked.

If R1 is hit by F6's throw, do we have interference?

At this point, no.

Assume for sake of argument that R1 returned directly to 1st base from the point where they saw the catch. Also assume there was no arm flailing, just an attempt by the runner to avoid getting hit in the head.

Still no.

When R1 returned to first base, s/he does not know if F6 actually made a throw or not.

Irrelevant.

Secondary consideration: since all players are in alignment, F6, R1, and F3, F3's position while receiving the ball cannot hinder R1.

As Bretman noted, if F3 doesn't have possession of the ball, s/he better get out of the way.

The point is that a runner can pretty much to anything they want to get to a base other than commit an act of interference or abandon progress for the purpose of drawing an OBS call. Nothing you mentioned here gives me an indication there was any interference. Even if the runner took an angle back to the base that placed himself in the path of a potential throw, still nothing.

[EsqUmp]

The only difference that results from what the player did was he/she got drilled in the hand and not the head. No harm / no foul.

Even if the runner slid back into the base and had his/her arms were up (as some do), there wouldn't be interference unless there was some deliberate act of interference. I would find that hard to believe since the runner can't really see a ball from behind his head.

As a general comment, I think that too many umpires go onto the field to prove all the rules that they know. They forget to recognize that sometimes things just happen and that's part of the game. The rule book has to be a part of the game without taking the game out of the game.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

As a general comment, I think that too many umpires go onto the field to prove all the rules that they know. They forget to recognize that sometimes things just happen and that's part of the game. The rule book has to be a part of the game without taking the game out of the game.

Personally, I'd prefer that the umpire did know the rule and prove it by not calling interference on this play.

And there are rules that cover this. I'm kind of scratching my head thinking of any routine plays that aren't covered by a rule that an umpire needs to know and know how to apply it.

What are examples of plays that are "just part of the game"...but not covered by an applicable rule?

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Personally, I'd prefer that the umpire did know the rule and prove it by not calling interference on this play.

And there are rules that cover this. I'm kind of scratching my head thinking of any routine plays that aren't covered by a rule that an umpire needs to know and know how to apply it.

What are examples of plays that are "just part of the game"...but not covered by an applicable rule?

how about having a dog run onto the field during a live ball and picking up the ball in its mouth and running away? What rule is this "play" covered under. LOL.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

how about having a dog run onto the field during a live ball and picking up the ball in its mouth and running away? What rule is this "play" covered under. LOL.

simple.... thats a block ball, and book rule applies. (you guys play too much USFA down there in Houston and clouds your vision)

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

how about having a dog run onto the field during a live ball and picking up the ball in its mouth and running away? What rule is this "play" covered under. LOL.

There's a reason I used the phrase "routine plays" in my post.

By the way...routine or not...I have actually seen this happen before! Just once in 40 years of being around baseball and softball, but it did happen. There was a twist, though. A batted ball was rolling along the first base foul line and hadn't reached the bag yet, when a bulldog broke his leash, ran from the stands and grabbed the ball. It was still a live ball, but he grabbed it over foul ground so it became foul and dead the instant he touched it. So, as strange as this was...there was a rule to cover it- the usual foul ball rules.

It actually took three or four minutes of chasing the dog around the field to get the ball. The dog was having a great time! Then, once things finally got settled down, the pitcher retrieved the ball and got ready for the next pitch. He gets ready to pitch, then suddenly asks for time. The umpire already seemed to be kind of ticked off about the game delay, so he grumbled, "What is it now?".

The pitcher gingerly held the ball up with two fingers and said, "Can I get a new ball? This one is covered in dog slobber".

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

how about having a dog run onto the field during a live ball and picking up the ball in its mouth and running away? What rule is this "play" covered under. LOL.

And then there is the ball that hits a duck that has wondered onto the field -

Easy call.......

[MD Longhorn]

I believe I've only seen interference properly called ONCE (in 18 years) on a retreating runner with her back to the ball. As she was diving for the base her hands were in the air, and she blatantly and obviously swung them down at the fielder's glove preventing her from making the catch. (This was back when ATR was valid).

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

simple.... thats a block ball, and book rule applies. (you guys play too much USFA down there in Houston and clouds your vision)

Why not spectator interference and award bases as appropriate? (This is not an example of something not covered by the rules.)

[Tru_in_Blu]

Wondering ducks?

Makes one take pause.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tru_in_blu

wondering ducks?

Makes one take pause.

:d :d :d :d

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Personally, I'd prefer that the umpire did know the rule and prove it by not calling interference on this play.

And there are rules that cover this. I'm kind of scratching my head thinking of any routine plays that aren't covered by a rule that an umpire needs to know and know how to apply it.

What are examples of plays that are "just part of the game"...but not covered by an applicable rule?

My point was that it's often as important to know when not to make a call as it is to make a call. I find that many umpires appear to try to make rules apply to a situation to make an actual call (as opposed to a non-call).

Of course, you would have to know the rules and know not to invoke a rule that isn't applicable.

A "wreck" as defined in the rule book is an example.

[txtrooper]

Did the Duck belong to the offense or defensive team?