The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Batter-Runner interference? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/95125-batter-runner-interference.html)

Crabby_Bob Fri May 24, 2013 12:59pm
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.

Manny A Fri May 24, 2013 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 895385)
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. 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."

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 01:11pm
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.

Robmoz Fri May 24, 2013 01:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895389)
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

RKBUmp Fri May 24, 2013 01:37pm
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.

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 01:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robmoz (Post 895392)
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
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)

Robmoz Fri May 24, 2013 01:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895396)
Are you trying to tell me the exception should apply here? Or are you simply disagreeing with where I thought the last step was?
I guess both, since she never steps in the lane at all.

Manny A Fri May 24, 2013 01:59pm
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?

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 02:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robmoz (Post 895397)
I guess both, since she never steps in the lane at all.
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.

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 02:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 895399)
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?
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.

Robmoz Fri May 24, 2013 02:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895400)
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.
Ok, got it now.

Robmoz Fri May 24, 2013 02:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895402)
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.
Whew, I thought you were supporting the no call...at first.:)

Manny A Fri May 24, 2013 02:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895402)
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.
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.

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 02:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 895410)
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.

chapmaja Fri May 24, 2013 10:40pm
My opinion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 895385)
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.
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.

Crabby_Bob Fri May 24, 2013 11:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 895444)
...
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 Sat May 25, 2013 09:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 895444)
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 Sat May 25, 2013 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 895467)
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 Sat May 25, 2013 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 895467)
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 Sat May 25, 2013 01:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 895475)
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1