Batter-Runner interference?
 

In this Notre Dame/Pitt game at about 43:40, there is an uncaught third strike. The catcher retrieves the ball and throws from fair territory. (Correction: foul territory but on the fair side of 1BLX.) The throw hits the BR just over one step before the BR, who never was in the runner's lane, reaches first base. Why isn't there BR INT here? Not a peep from the coaches either.

My guess is because the BR had to enter fair territory in order to touch first base. On something as close as you describe--BR just over one step before she reaches first--it would be tough to judge she still had to stay in the lane.

Per NCAA rule 12.2.4.2, the third exception when a BR may be out of the lane is "if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base."

What are you looking at here... the runner absolutely does not fit the exception... she does not "exit the lane in her last step to reach the base"... in fact, the first step she ever makes in the lane is that last step.

I don't believe this was ruled INT because the runner was, actually, back in the lane for that last step when the ball hit her.

What are YOU looking at? The runner never made a single stride in the running lane and ran all the way to 1B in fair territory? Am I missing something here...look at the replay at the 44:06 mark

I could see where the umpire could rule this was not a quality throw by the catcher. F3 is clearly set up well inside the baseline and appears to be asking for the throw to her right side away from the runner. Instead the catcher throws right down the baseline into the runner.

Are you trying to tell me the exception should apply here? Or are you simply disagreeing with where I thought the last step was?

If the latter, let me clarify... when she gets hit, her foot is just about to hit the bag, and she gets hit on what appears to be the right shoulder. I'm not saying she ever takes a step within the lane - I'm saying that during that last step is the only time any of her body is within the lane ... and the only excuse I can come up with for not calling INT is that when the ball hit her, her body was in the lane (consider PU's view ... he's not looking at feet - he's seeing the ball/body over the lane when it hits her)

I guess both, since she never steps in the lane at all.

So, if a BR is hit by the ball when she is in fair territory on that last stride in order to touch first base, you are saying it should be treated one way (no violation) if she was in the lane until that last stride, and the other way (lane violation) if she was never in the lane to begin with.

I don't agree. The BR is allowed to be outside the lane for the purpose of touching first base. What difference should it make how she got there?

Then you don't understand the exception at all.

You can't say she's out of the lane AND the exception applies... the exception is for a runner who is IN the lane, and then because the base is not in the lane - takes her last step outside the lane in order to touch the base.

For a runner not in the lane initially, there's no exception.

The rules say there's a difference. The rules simply say you must be in the lane to avoid an interference call. If you're out of the lane, and you interfere, it's interference ... UNLESS the interference occurs during that last step where you have to exit the lane to touch the base.

Further... what you are implying invalidates the entire purpose of the running lane.

Let me make sure I'm clear here... I'm not saying there shouldn't be an INT call on this play (frankly, I kind of think they missed this one). I'm saying the only excuse I can think of for not calling it is that the runner, from the POV of the PU, was in the lane when struck.

Ok, got it now.

Whew, I thought you were supporting the no call...at first.:)

Maybe I am out to lunch here. I always believed hindrance was ignored when the BR is in fair territory for that last stride in order to touch first base, and it really made no physical difference if the BR was completely in the lane, partially in the lane (e.g., her last two steps with her left foot hit the ground in fair territory), or all the way out of the lane before that ball reached the fielder and ended up hitting the BR.

I've never heard it taught that way.

If the runner is in the lane and then just on that last step, move in enough to touch the bag, A) the majority of their body is still in the lane and B) they are not preventing the fielder from stretching forward to receive the throw --- that last step is kind of behind the fielder.

If the runner is in the lane the whole way, it's likely their entire body is in the lane (although not the case in the video of the OP), AND they are preventing the fielder from stretching toward the throw to make the play.

My opinion
 

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 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.

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