B/r int

jmkupka · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 08, 2015, 04:04pm

Heard a play being discussed at a clinic today, didn't agree with the ruling.

R1 on 1B, 1 out. R1 off with the pitch. Batter hits it straight up. F2 makes the catch in front of the plate & fires to 1B to double up R1. Ball hits B2 in the helmet & goes into DBT. They have a retired runner interfering and we have 3 outs.

I say if B2 is in the running lane, she's done nothing wrong and R1 gets 3B.

chuck chopper · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 08, 2015, 04:39pm

I say you would be correct. If the batter/runner is where she should be- no penalty.

CecilOne · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 08, 2015, 04:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka

They have a retired runner interfering and we have 3 outs.

Interfering with what?

youngump · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 08, 2015, 06:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Interfering with what?

The appeal. Though I agree with Chuck (at least mostly). Being where you're supposed to be and not dissolving is not interference. The running lane is irrelevant on this play though. The BR could be out of the lane and still not be guilty of interference. The running lane only applies on throws to retire the BR.

jmkupka · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 08, 2015, 09:13pm

I'm glad you brought that up. The running-lane rule, as I know it, is to prevent the fielder at 1B from being interfered with a throw from home plate.
I was not sure if it pertained to the attempt to retire the B/R only.

IRISHMAFIA · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 07:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I'm glad you brought that up. The running-lane rule, as I know it, is to prevent the fielder at 1B from being interfered with a throw from home plate.
I was not sure if it pertained to the attempt to retire the B/R only.

The 3' lane is to prevent the BR from interfering with the ability of a defender to receive a throw at 1B, from anywhere.

I agree, this is not INT unless the retired player did something to INT. Running to 1st on a batted ball is NOT an act of INT.

jmkupka · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 08:44am

Thanks guys, Mike, do you concur that the running lane is not a deciding factor in this play (because the running lane rule only pertains to retiring the B/R)? 8.2.E doesn't mention that detail.
The verbiage does read "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base", I do infer that to mean "the throw to put out the B/R", as opposed to "a throw at 1B"

CecilOne · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 09:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I do infer that to mean "the throw to put out the B/R", as opposed to "a throw at 1B"

Why?

Andy · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 10:58am

The issue is not any throw to first vs only a throw to retire a B/R, it's that you don't have a batter-runner anymore after the fly ball is caught.

The running lane is only applicable to the batter-runner. Once the fly ball is caught, you have a retired runner and that runner must commit an act of interference in order to interfere. I would say that simply continuing to run toward first base does not qualify, especially with the play and the ball behind him/her.

Altor · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 11:06am

Indeed. Ask those at the clinic how this is any different than F6 retiring R1 on a force at 2nd and then throwing the ball into R1 while trying to retire the BR.

DRJ1960 · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 11:39am

Posted a similar question several years ago and was eaten alive by umpires who believe that retired runner MUST "disappear".

Skahtboi · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Posted a similar question several years ago and was eaten alive by umpires who believe that retired runner MUST "disappear".

I don't know of many on this forum who have advocated an instantly vanishing runner. Quite the contrary. Many of us have preached how it is just not possible.

jmkupka · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 09, 2015, 01:15pm

Altor, guarantee this same group would be calling both outs on that play.
They adhere to the philosophy of "we get paid for strikes and outs".

EsqUmp · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Posted a similar question several years ago and was eaten alive by umpires who believe that retired runner MUST "disappear".

We don't make runners disappear. Just defenders attempting to field a ball just out of their reach.

EsqUmp · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altor

Indeed. Ask those at the clinic how this is any different than F6 retiring R1 on a force at 2nd and then throwing the ball into R1 while trying to retire the BR.

Well, unless the BR takes out the defender at 1st base when they are turning a 6-4-3 double play, the odds are you won't have 3 foot lane interference. Just think of the quality of the throw...