Interference on dropped 3rd??

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok here it is was watching a 12U ASA game using the double first base) this weekend and saw this. Dropped 3rd strike and BR took off toward 1st she was about 3/4 down the line (well past the running lane) BR running in fair territory and F3 setup in fair territory catch throws over runner and it goes to right field, R1 scores from 3rd. Now the question is as I saw it I was debating interference on the BR, (BR out R1 back to 3rd) as she should have been in the running lane in foul territory. What do you all have? I know it's a HTBT but what are your feelings on this type of play?

[CecilOne]

I believe the strict interpretation is that the BR did not interfere with the throw as such because the catcher made a bad throw.

[Andy]

The rule regarding the running lane says that the BR interferes with the fielder taking the throw, not the throw itself.

In other words, the throw must be a "quality" throw that the fielder should catch if the BR is in the running lane.

If the catcher (in this case) throws the ball over the fielder's head so high that it could not be caught, the BR did not interfere with the taking of the throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
Ok here it is was watching a 12U ASA game using the double first base) this weekend and saw this. Dropped 3rd strike and BR took off toward 1st she was about 3/4 down the line (well past the running lane) BR running in fair territory and F3 setup in fair territory catch throws over runner and it goes to right field, R1 scores from 3rd. Now the question is as I saw it I was debating interference on the BR, (BR out R1 back to 3rd) as she should have been in the running lane in foul territory. What do you all have? I know it's a HTBT but what are your feelings on this type of play?

Here's the primary question: Where was the catcher when she threw the ball to 1st?

Some logic would place the catcher in foul territory, hence the runner believed the running lane extended 3' to the left of the foul line which is allowed when the throw is coming from foul territory.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA


Some logic would place the catcher in foul territory, hence the runner believed the running lane extended 3' to the left of the foul line which is allowed when the throw is coming from foul territory.

I agree with the others that the play as stated was not interference. I'm confused about this statement. I know that if the throw comes from foul territiory that the fielder can use the orange bag and the runner the white bag, but I've never heard that the running lane switches sides. Is that an ASA "enhancement"?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SC Ump

I agree with the others that the play as stated was not interference. I'm confused about this statement. I know that if the throw comes from foul territiory that the fielder can use the orange bag and the runner the white bag, but I've never heard that the running lane switches sides. Is that an ASA "enhancement"?

I don't know what you are referring to when you note "enhancement", but it is clearly stated in 8.2.E.

In the play, I only offered a possibility, not what happened or what the call should have been. I just noted what could have happened based on the information that was offered.

[WestMichBlue]

I have a problem taking a literal interpretation of this rule, as it appears that you are only protecting the ability of the fielder to catch a throw. I can not visualize a game situation where you would ever call a B-R out.

Let's assume a bunt in front of plate, F2 making the play, and B-R well in fair territory.

#1 B-R is 30' from 1B and F1 hits her with throw. Is that a "quality" throw? If the ball never got there, how does that interfere with the fielder taking a throw?

#2 B-R is 30' from 1B and throw whizzes by her ear and F3 does not make the catch. Quality throw? Interference? Should a good F1 have made that catch? Change the distance to 15'. To 5'. Is there a point where you decided that F3 does not have time to react to a ball that just misses the B-R?

#3 F2 can not see F1 and she does not make throw. No interference, right? (No throw, no call.) But if she tries to force a throw over the B-R and it goes over the head of F3 you are going to say "not a quality throw." So you have disadvantaged the Defense while allowing the Offense to make what should be an illegal action.

#4 F2 wants to make the throw, but can not see a clear line to 1B so she adjusts a couple steps but the throw is a fraction too late. Not interference, right?

IMO, the 3' lane is there to legally divide the field between the offense and defense when a play is being made down the first base line. The B-R owns the 3' lane and is protected against interference regardles of what happens with the throw. The defense has all the rest of the playing surface to find a clear line to 1B and make the throw. If the B-R is not in her legal territory and interferes with the fielder or the throw, B-R is out.

Interference "with the throw" protected the fielder's right to make an unobstructed throw to 1B other then through the 3' lane. This is the way we called it for years in high school ball, until NFHS re-wrote Rule 8 last year to copy ASA rules.

With that strict interpretation, when would you ever call inteference?

WMB

[Dakota]

When the throw sails 12 feet over the F3's head, the interpretation doesn't have to be "strict." (OK, the situation didn't say 12'...)

Fundamental to interference is there has to be a play to be intefered with. No throw; no interference. Horrible throw, no interference. Same rule everywhere, actually. Runner coming in to home; throw sails over F2's head; collision at the plate. Interference? No.

The rule, as written, recognizes (IMO) that the batter-runner does not have eyes in the back of her head. Hence, she is charged with interfering with the fielder at 1st taking the throw.

But, if the throw is a quality throw (not perfect, just good enough that there is a play at 1st to be interfered with), and the runner is out of the running lane, and the fielder covering 1st cannot make the play because the runner is out of the running lane, then the call is made.

It's a judgment in a long line of judgments, and not that tough to see and call.

I notice you have the BR at 30' from 1st in your first two situations. This is at the edge of where the running lane begins. Talk about "strict" interpretation. If the ball hits the BR before she passes the 30' mark, or wizzes by her ear before she passes 30' & no catch is made, no interference.

Interesting you cite NFHS ... aren't these the guys who a year or so ago declared open season on BRs by issuing an interpretation that all the fielder had to do was plunk the BR out of the running lane with the ball to get the call? I think they needed to change their rule... or at least their ruling.

Regarding the running lane being a sanctuary of sorts for the BR - no, it isn't. Just like everywhere else, she may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. She can't be waving her arms or such like.

Finally, it is not illegal per se for the BR to run out of the running lane. She may legally run any where she pleases. She is not restricted to the running lane. The only sanction is if she is out of the running lane and interferes with the catch at 1st base, she is guilty of interference. So, she is at risk of an interference call if she is out of the lane, but she is not per se illegal.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by SC Ump

I agree with the others that the play as stated was not interference. I'm confused about this statement. I know that if the throw comes from foul territiory that the fielder can use the orange bag and the runner the white bag, but I've never heard that the running lane switches sides. Is that an ASA "enhancement"?

Mike,

The BR is allowed to be in a "running lane" in fair territory if two conditions are met: 1) the fielder is using the orange base, and 2) the throw is coming from foul territory. You left out condition #1. (SC Ump, as Mike said, this is from ASA rule 8-2E.)

However, this idea that the BR is allowed to use the white base (or, here, run in fair territory) if the throw is coming from foul territory is something, IMO, ASA needs to clarify, possibly even change.

As I said in my reply to WMB, the BR does not have eyes in the back of her (his) head. A sensible change would be to allow the BR to use either base if the defense is using (partially or completely) the orange base regardless of whether the defense's use of the orange base is legal.

If the defense improperly uses the orange base, the BR should be declared safe (no appeal honored) if she touches white. However, to get the out, the defense would have to properly use the orange base (i.e. throw coming from foul territory). This seems fair, to me, since the defense can see the play coming from behind the BR, but the BR cannot.

[DaveASA/FED]

I left this off in the original post, but the dropped third came off a shin guard and rolled into fair territory where the F2 grabbed and threw from. IMO it looked like a decent throw that F3 should have been able to control but it popped over BR's shoulder and she looked like she didn't have time to react and catch it. I know it's a HTBT but I think it COULD have been interference based on what I hear here.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
I left this off in the original post, but the dropped third came off a shin guard and rolled into fair territory where the F2 grabbed and threw from. IMO it looked like a decent throw that F3 should have been able to control but it popped over BR's shoulder and she looked like she didn't have time to react and catch it. I know it's a HTBT but I think it COULD have been interference based on what I hear here.

If F3 didn't have time to react due to the BR being outside the running lane (blocking her view of the throw, for example), then calling a running lane violation would be proper.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Mike,

The BR is allowed to be in a "running lane" in fair territory if two conditions are met: 1) the fielder is using the orange base, and 2) the throw is coming from foul territory. You left out condition #1. (SC Ump, as Mike said, this is from ASA rule 8-2E.)

However, this idea that the BR is allowed to use the white base (or, here, run in fair territory) if the throw is coming from foul territory is something, IMO, ASA needs to clarify, possibly even change.

As I said in my reply to WMB, the BR does not have eyes in the back of her (his) head. A sensible change would be to allow the BR to use either base if the defense is using (partially or completely) the orange base regardless of whether the defense's use of the orange base is legal.

If the defense improperly uses the orange base, the BR should be declared safe (no appeal honored) if she touches white. However, to get the out, the defense would have to properly use the orange base (i.e. throw coming from foul territory). This seems fair, to me, since the defense can see the play coming from behind the BR, but the BR cannot.

You are correct, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the BR. As you note, they do not have eyes in back of their head and the BR's path shouldn't be mandated by where F3 is standing. If you haven't noticed, especially in the JO game, the coaches are acting as the runner's eyes and directing them "inside" or "outside" based on the origin of the throw, not based on where the defender is standing.