Batter-Runner interference?

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...
Had the throw not hit the runner (if she had been in the lane for example), would F3 had been able to catch the throw?
...

IMHO, yes. F3 was tracking the throw with her glove when it hit the runner. F3 had not moved from her initial setup.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I can't say why the coach did not come out to argue. The only thing I can see is that maybe the umpire didn't think the defense has a chance to get her at first given where she was, and were the throw was from the catcher, combined with the location of the first baseman.

Had the throw not hit the runner (if she had been in the lane for example), would F3 had been able to catch the throw?

I don't think there is even a doubt F3 could have made that play even though she did call for a throw around the runner.

I think in that case I would not have called the B-R out either because she, in my opinion (watching on a poor video look at it), did not interfere with a legitimate play being made on her.

The replay portion was pretty clear to me. That is a lane violation except in the associations that do not utilize a double base.

It is close, but I think the umpire got it right.

I believe it is only right because the NCAA absolves the BR of lane violations for the last step to 1B

NCAA Rule 12.2.4.2 The batter-runner may not run outside the base runner’s lane and, in the umpire’s judgment, interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Exception: The batter-runner may run outside the base runner’s lane: (a) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner’s lane; (b) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (c) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base.

Of course, now the argument may come up that she couldn't leave the lane in which she was never located, but I don't think that would carry to a reversal.

I thought it was interesting that the play was already going to 1B and the PU was making a safe signal. I would love to see if he stepped out to trail the BR which is not on any of the video.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think there is even a doubt F3 could have made that play even though she did call for a throw around the runner.



The replay portion was pretty clear to me. That is a lane violation except in the associations that do not utilize a double base.



I believe it is only right because the NCAA absolves the BR of lane violations for the last step to 1B

NCAA Rule 12.2.4.2 The batter-runner may not run outside the base runner’s lane and, in the umpire’s judgment, interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Exception: The batter-runner may run outside the base runner’s lane: (a) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner’s lane; (b) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (c) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base.

Of course, now the argument may come up that she couldn't leave the lane in which she was never located, but I don't think that would carry to a reversal.

I thought it was interesting that the play was already going to 1B and the PU was making a safe signal. I would love to see if he stepped out to trail the BR which is not on any of the video.

The video was not playing well on my computer last night. The clarity of the play without skipping might may a difference in my opinion of the play.

I do think there is an argument to be made for not granting the exception on leaving the lane for a last step when you have never been in the lane to begin with. To leave something you must have been there in the first place.

I still don't know if the throw would have beaten her to the base had the runner been using a double base. It would have been a bang bang play at the base.

I do think the reason interference was not called was the NCAA rule regarding the last step, which also explains the lack of argument on the call.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is a lane violation except in the associations that do not utilize a double base.

Of course, now the argument may come up that she couldn't leave the lane in which she was never located, but I don't think that would carry to a reversal.

I thought it was interesting that the play was already going to 1B and the PU was making a safe signal. I would love to see if he stepped out to trail the BR which is not on any of the video.

This is a 3 foot lane violation regardless of whether there is a single or double base.

Misinterpretation and application of a playing rule is the only thing that allows reversal. That's what we have with your interpretation. Stick with the black letter of the rule and stop changing it to suit your opinion. They are allowed to step fair for the last step because otherwise they couldn't touch the base. That's why there is an exception. Not to protect a runner who isn't in the lane in the first place.

Great signal by the plate umpire. When in Rome...

You go out and interpret things to suit your own opinion and use whatever mechanics you like though.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

This is a 3 foot lane violation regardless of whether there is a single or double base.

Misinterpretation and application of a playing rule is the only thing that allows reversal. That's what we have with your interpretation. Stick with the black letter of the rule and stop changing it to suit your opinion. They are allowed to step fair for the last step because otherwise they couldn't touch the base. That's why there is an exception. Not to protect a runner who isn't in the lane in the first place.

What is the matter, the rule I copied and pasted isn't black enough for you? Personally, I don't care for that RULE exception simply because your statement above is not true. It is very possible to touch 1B without leaving the lane for the final stride and if more BR would be taught how to hit the base properly, and defenders to play it properly, we would never seen the introduction of the "double base".

I would like it to be a violation, but as many a NCAA umpire have told me even as recently as last Monday evening, they are not going to call out the BR on the last step at first.

Great signal by the plate umpire. When in Rome...

Yeah, an unnecessary event which may have possibly prevented him from getting out from behind the plate in a timely fashion to trail the runner and get a better view of the violation.

You go out and interpret things to suit your own opinion and use whatever mechanics you like though.

I interpret rules and teach the mechanics as I have been directed, many times in a manner with which I do not agree, but it wasn't up to me to make that determination.