B/r int

[jmkupka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Skahtboi]

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]

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".

[prab]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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".

Using that philosophy, how do they prevent (or otherwise deal with) defenders intentionally throwing the ball to hit the already out batter on her way to 1st?

[EsqUmp]

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]

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...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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"

No matter when scenario, the running lane applies only to the BR and a defender receiving a throw at 1B. The minute that ball is caught, the BR no longer exists. So, you now have a retired runner question about INT. The 3' lane would be irrelevant to the point of the rule and the umpire needs to determine if the offensive player committed an act of interference and apply 8.7.P, if necessary