B/R Hit by throw from F3 to Home
 

Friday night NCAA game bases loaded b/r hits a one hopper to F3 who throws home instead of making a play at 1st. B/r was still in the first 30 ft from home and thus not to the running lane yet. B/r was on the fair side of the foul line when she was hit by the throw to home, and after being hit all runners advanced safely. Umps had a meeting then decided she was not out for interference. Why would ASA 8-2-f-3 not apply here ?

The interp I've learned here is, the running lane is used by the BR to prevent INT with a throw to 1B only.

this was NCAA, why would any ASA rule apply?

Because it is an NCAA game? :D

More serious answer... you make note of her position wrt the running lane... the running lane is irrelevant in the situation you describe. It only pertains to interference with the fielder taking the throw at first base. It does not apply to any other action by the defense.

For the BR in the situation you described to be guilty of interference, she would have had to commit an act of interference. Merely running to 1B is not such an act. If she had done something to indicate interference (e.g. sticking out her hand to block the ball, deviating her path to get hit by the ball, etc.), then an interference ruling would have been appropriate.

Rule, nit just interp.

ditto what Dakota said (the serious part).

Tom/Dakota- may I then assume that your answer is also true anywhere else on the diamond. Thus if a runner going from 1st to 2nd is hit by a throw from F4 and she had not been put-out yet, she has still not committed interference simply by getting hit unless she does something out of the norm. ASA 8-7-J-3

Whether out or not.

Yes. ASA 8-2-f-3 would not apply here.

Alright, first off, you said this was an NCAA game, and all of the subsequent discussion dealt with an ASA rule. The NCAA rule that pertains here when a BR is declared out for interference is:

Note the reference to intent in the rule when it comes to thrown balls. As Tom mentioned, you would need to see something pretty blatant that indicates intent by the BR to contact the thrown ball.

NFHS also has the word "intentionally" in its rule on BR interference. For some reason, ASA does not. I don't know if it was intentional for the word "intentionally" to be missing from the ASA rule.

Yes, it was intentional. ASA made a decision several years ago to remove "intent" from the interference rules. In my view, however, the net effect is simply to not require umpires to read minds. ASA still requires an "act" of interference. ASA just does not require the umpire to know that the intent of the act was to interfere.