Is this interference?

[Umpireernie]

No, I said that I'm not calling it interference just because she is not in the lane. That is merely one aspect of the play. It is a helpful guide, if you will.

Ok..so your calling it inference because she's not in the running lane plus what other aspect?

I challenge you to provide me with an interference rule that says "prevent" or any permutation thereof. Neither NFHS nor ASA use that word, and ASA includes the sentence "Contact is not necessary."

I will fully admit that I am an umpire not an English major; but isn't "prevent" just another word for "hinder" or "impede".

"Contact is not necessary" is true in a general definition of "interference". A runner or other offensive team member could be guilty of "confusing" a defensive player without making contact. A runner from 1B to 2B who merely crosses in front of a defender who is going to field a batted ball but avoids running into her has done nothing wrong. But if that runner stops and obviously screens the defender from the ball she would be interfering without contact.

And I challenge you to show me a way to interfere with a thrown ball in flight without contacting it somehow.

 

[Umpireernie]

An example: Runner on 1st, short pop up to F4, R1 runs over F4 who still makes the catch. Interference? Yes. F4's play on the ball was made more difficult by the runner.
*

Interference? Yes.
And the ball is dead immediately when R1 runs over F4. What happens next is irrelevant.

Back to the OP had the batter-runner actually interfered with the throw the ball would be dead right then not after the b/r reached 1B safely.

 

[Umpireernie]

If a runner was on first and interference was ruled would runner be returned to first?

Assuming the runner from 1B had not yet reached 2B at the time of the interference, yes.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Ok..so your calling it inference because she's not in the running lane plus what other aspect?

Intent.

NFHS 8-6.10 d) A runner is out when the runner interferes [impedes, hinders, or confuses] intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

IMO, what she did was intentional.

I will fully admit that I am an umpire not an English major; but isn't "prevent" just another word for "hinder" or "impede".

If they all meant the same thing, the rule would not mention them separately.

Hinder: 1) to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; 2) to prevent from doing, acting, or happening; stop
Impede: to retard in movement or progress by means of obstacles or hindrances

So we have 2 options on 'hinder,' and 'impede' has 1, and both can mean simply to cause difficulty, not necessarily to prevent, though that applies as well. It is not solely to prevent, which appears to be the standard everyone but me is using here.

And I challenge you to show me a way to interfere with a thrown ball in flight without contacting it somehow.

Maybe we're doing an apples and oranges thing here? I'm talking about interfering with the fielder, not the ball.

 

[Comp]

Seriously, 6 pages and how many umpires have all said this does not qualify as interference and still the argument goes on?

 

[Greenmonsters]

...And I challenge you to show me a way to interfere with a thrown ball in flight without contacting it somehow.

I'll bite on this one! How about if a baserunner uses their hands to shield the receiving fielder's view of the thrown ball (i.e., faceguarding)?

 

[Comp]

I'll bite on this one! How about if a baserunner uses their hands to shield the receiving fielder's view of the thrown ball (i.e., faceguarding)?

Then you don't have interference with a thrown ball, you have interfered with the player receiving the throw.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Then you don't have interference with a thrown ball, you have interfered with the player receiving the throw.

Dang you Red Baron, good point!

 

[Umpireernie]

Intent.

NFHS 8-6.10 d) A runner is out when the runner interferes [impedes, hinders, or confuses] intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

IMO, what she did was intentional.

What the batter-runner did is intentionally run to first base after hitting the ball. Merely running to first base is NOT illegal, and the route this batter-runner chose is not illegal. There is no requirement to run in a direct line, nor to run in the lane for that matter. Would you also want INT on a runner from first to second if she made a wide turn and crossed into the path of a throw just becase she didn't run on a straight line? No.

Fielders are requied to catch thrown balls while runners are running toward their base all the time. This batter-runner would have to do something to actually "impede, hinder, or confuse" the fielder making the catch. For example if the batter-runner stopped in front of the fielder or danced back and forth in front of the fielder or waved her hands in the fielders face she would be intentionally interfering (without contact) and the ball would be dead before the throw even arrives. But just running to and/or thru the base cannot be considered an intentional act to interfere with the fielder at first base.

And again, the batter-runner was already at first base when the throw was caught. So how was the fielder "hindered, impeded, or confused"?

You stated earlier that if you were this batter-runner's coach you would coach her to not run that far inside. I totally agree with you since she is certainly risking being hit by a throw to first and being called out. But we can't come up with an out on this batter-runner for poor base running if she does not actually get put out and does not actually interfere with an attempt to put her out.

 

[Dan-O]

The three foot running lane is entirely in foul ground. It's defined by the white chalk line you see in the video that is parallel to the foul line, to the right side of it.

The base path rule you quoted is something else and doesn't apply here.

The base path rule is the entire reason it's not interference. She takes the direct route to first base after completing her bunt. She was never outside the running lane; because the running lane starts after the base path has been established, and therefore is meaningless.