Is this interference?

[VA Chris]

The BR was attempting a drag bunt from the set up. She made contact as she was leaving the batter's box and then ran towards 1B.

Is it being said that a batter-runner on a drag bunt or slap must move from the front of the batter's box to the running lane on the outside of the foul line?

Wouldn't her direction to the base determine her base path and the 3' on each side there of?

 

[BretMan]

The BR was attempting a drag bunt from the set up. She made contact as she was leaving the batter's box and then ran towards 1B.

Is it being said that a batter-runner on a drag bunt or slap must move from the front of the batter's box to the running lane on the outside of the foul line?

Wouldn't her direction to the base determine her base path and the 3' on each side there of?

The three foot running lane to first base is a special case that applies only when the ball is being thrown to a fielder at first base, on the initial play to retire a batter-runner. Its main purpose is to cover plays being made from around the plate area, so that the runner can't get in between the thrower and the fielder at first to disrupt the play. But it does apply on any throw to first base from any area on the field.

The rules don't say that the runner MUST be in the lane. It says that if she is in the lane, then she is exempt from an interference call if the throw hits her or she impedes the fielder taking the throw.

The base path rule, and a runner deviating more that three feet from it, is a different rule. That applies for other plays where a runner is going to a base and a fielder has the ball and is attempting to tag them.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

The BR was attempting a drag bunt from the set up. She made contact as she was leaving the batter's box and then ran towards 1B.

Is it being said that a batter-runner on a drag bunt or slap must move from the front of the batter's box to the running lane on the outside of the foul line?

Wouldn't her direction to the base determine her base path and the 3' on each side there of?

Here's what I see, and why I think it's a good call (again, I don't have a real opinion on whether the call was technically correct): she gets the bunt down and is fine leaving the box as she does. From that point, she does not attempt to go straight to the bag but instead seems to deliberately stay way inside the line and only at the last second cuts sharply to the bag. I would interpret that and an attempt to "impeded, hinder, or confuse" F3. JMO and all that.

 

[BretMan]

Here's what I see, and why I think it's a good call (again, I don't have a real opinion on whether the call was technically correct): she gets the bunt down and is fine leaving the box as she does. From that point, she does not attempt to go straight to the bag but instead seems to deliberately stay way inside the line and only at the last second cuts sharply to the bag. I would interpret that and an attempt to "impeded, hinder, or confuse" F3. JMO and all that.

Maybe this is where we have a disconnect (highlighted portion above).

An "attempt" to interfere isn't illegal, up until the point where where it actually does, in fact, interfere.

Example: Runner running to a base, throw is coming in, and runner swings her hand at the ball in an "attempt" to knock it down. But she misses the ball. She tried to interfere, but she didn't, so it's not interference.

On the first base play in question, maybe the runner was running in fair ground on purpose, and maybe she did have evil intentions when she did.

But that didn't cause the throw to be late, or impede the throw, or cause contact with the ball, or prevent the fielder at first base from catching it. It was just a weak, off-line, late throw and nothing the runner did caused that. Maybe she was attempting to interfere, but I don't think that her attempt was successful. Thus, no interference.

 

[Umpireernie]

Here's what I see, and why I think it's a good call (again, I don't have a real opinion on whether the call was technically correct): she gets the bunt down and is fine leaving the box as she does. From that point, she does not attempt to go straight to the bag but instead seems to deliberately stay way inside the line and only at the last second cuts sharply to the bag. I would interpret that and an attempt to "impeded, hinder, or confuse" F3. JMO and all that.

Good discussion on something that I believe is often misinterpreted. People know there is a rule about the running lane but apply it far too broadly. Buckeye I get the feeling that you really want to call something on the BR simply because she is not running in the lane. But what I see is the BR simply taking the shortest route from where the end of her slap bunt run takes her to the first base bag. There is nothing illegal about that so long as she does not interfere with defender receiving throw at first. Just not running in the lane is not in and of itself interference and in fact quite often batter-runners will not use this running lane.

To "hinder" the runner would have to physically deflect the throw (get hit) or physically prevent the fielder from catching the ball (making contact with the fielder in front of the bag could constitute this). But none of that happened. The throw was made and caught without the batter-runner affecting it at all! Now for "confuse". Simply running from where the batter-runner ends her slap attempt to the First base bag can hardly be considered confusing. Everybody knows that's the goal..to reach first base safely. The batter-runner would need to do something other than attempt to advance to first for me to consider that she is "confusing" the defense illegally.

My one question about the video as obviously we only get to watch this play from the stands behind home..

Is the initial call of "safe" simply because the throw was not caught at 1B in time? Or did F3 come off the bag? It's hard to tell the batter-runners exact path from this view point. I am assuming this is just a routine "throw not in time" safe call on a throw that was not interfered with.. but I will conceded a possible judgement could be that F3 pulled away from the bag while receiving the throw because the batter-runner was about to crash into her. That could be judged as impeding the fielder receiving the throw at 1B. Again I don't think that's what happened here I don't think fielder came off base and the batter-runner does not seem like she is going to run into the defender.

 

[Mr T]

Terribly drawn batters' box. Impossible to tell for sure but looks very possible that batter's foot was outside of box when contact with ball made.

I've never been a big fan of often over application of running lane rule, but if it is even possible to apply as a judgement this this is the case. It seems that allowing runners to run full speed at the first baseman way in fair and then sort of haphazardly crashing out of the way like that at the last second would be a very bad thing to generally allow, but still all points taken to the contrary.

I am not sure about those claiming there was no contact. Very hard to see. If the runners foot contacted the first baseman's foot on the white portion of the bag perhaps that is what the umpire saw?

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

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Just a few clarifications:

Again, it doesn't have to prevent the play from being completed in order for it to be interference. I can find nothing in the rules that says that. "Hinder" is simply to cause difficulty, not prevent. If the B/R waved her hand at the ball and caused the fielder difficulty = interference.

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.

No, I'm not wanting to "call something on the BR simply because she is not running in the lane." The issue I see is that she does not make a straight path from her start point to the bag; she stays about the same distance inside the line all the way down until the last possible moment. Look at how she hits the bag: she needs to take a huge step to the right to get there. IMO that is an act that hindered the throw and catch = interference.

I have no idea if "hinder" is explained differently at umpire school. If so, then I'm wrong in my interpretation. But if I was the opposing coach I'd applaud the call, and if I was her coach I'd tell her to get back to the line quicker next time.

 

[Umpireernie]

With all due respect sir, you say you don't want to penalize batter-runner for not being in the lane but you go on to argue that the batter-runners path to first base is grounds for interference. It is not.

The fielder who picked up the bunted ball was not prevented in any way from fielding the bunt nor was she prevented from throwing the ball. Certainly not by the batter-runner who was nowhere near her and was moving away from her at the time of the throw. Keep in mind the running-lane has nothing to do with the defender throwing the ball, it's has to do with the defender who is going to receive the ball at first base.

Now was the throw itself interfered with? I'm talking about the actual ball in flight from the thrower to the receiver at first base. A throw that hits a runner is not interference unless the runner makes an obvious intentional act to contact the ball. But the batter runner is required to not interfere with a throw to first base by being out of the running lane so if she is hit outside the lane with a throw that in the umpires judgement could have retired her then she has interfered. This throw did not hit the batter-runner, and the batter-runners path to the base while not in the running lane did nothing to delay the arrival of the ball at first base. The defense caught the ball at first base no problem.. the throw was simply not in time.

If your saying the fielder who threw the ball might have thrown quicker, or more direct to first base had the runner been in the running-lane that is simply a non-issue. Again the batter-runners location in regards to the running-lane means nothing when talking about interfering with the player fielding the batted ball and throwing to first. It has to do with interfering with the throw itself that can put the runner out at first or interfering with the fielder catching ball at first.

So how did the batter-runner running to the bag from fair territory interfere with the fielder at first base? Again she caught the ball, and the batter-runners presence neither slowed the throw down nor prevented the fielder from making the catch. It was just not in time.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

With all due respect sir, you say you don't want to penalize batter-runner for not being in the lane but you go on to argue that the batter-runners path to first base is grounds for interference. It is not.

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.

The fielder who picked up the bunted ball was not prevented in any way from fielding the bunt nor was she prevented from throwing the ball...

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."

Now was the throw itself interfered with...?

We go round and round. "Impedes, hinders, or confuses." That is the standard. IMO, where and how she ran was an act (intentional, IMO, but intention doesn't matter to Blue, I get it) that hindered (i.e. made difficult) the throw and the catch. Interference.

Like I said, I've not been to umpire school. Do they instruct that the play must be prevented from being completed before calling interference? I honestly would like to know. If that is the standard taught, then I change my opinion to "not interference."

But here's the thing for me at least: I'm not Blue, so I get to consider intention. It appeared to be an intentional act by the B/R who may or may not have been within the letter of the law, but was outside the spirit of it. As a coach I say it was a good call, even if it is ultimately shown to be an incorrect call. JMO. Maybe it was an honest mistake. We have an 8th grader who runs looking at her own feet. How she finds any base is a mystery to us - maybe some sort of inertial navigation system. But even she doesn't run that far inside the line with no attempt to get back to the line, nor to take a straight path to the bag. So maybe it's not interference by rule (depending on the umpiring standards taught), but it should be.

 

[Umpireernie]

We go round and round on wether or not the batter-runner interfered with the throw itself, the actual ball in flight. I'm not sure why. The ball flew untouched, unmolesteded, unhindered, unimpeded, nonstop from the throwers hand to the receiver's glove. The throw was NOT interfered with. If we can't agree on that we should just adjourn.

But your really hung up on the path the batter runner takes from the end of her slap attempt to first base. I think your saying the mere presence of the batter-runner between the two defenders is an intentional act to confuse and therefore hinder the defense. It simply is not. Runners and batter-runners can and do take all kinds of paths running to bases. The only added burden on the batter-runner that other runners do not have to worry about is interfering with the throw itself while outside the lane. As we see in the video, the batter-runner did not do anything to hinder the throw. Contact is not necessary to have interference but to interfere with a thrown ball in flight without touching it is practically impossible. You really can't "confuse" the thrown ball in flight.

I hear you say you like the call as a coach so I guess what you want is for the rule to be the batter-runner is out if she fails to run in the running lane period. Or maybe if she fails to run in the lane and there is a throw, any throw, anywhere remotely in the area of first base? I'm not sure where you would want the line drawn. What if fielder picks up batted ball looks toward first base and sees batter runner in fair ground and just decides not to throw at all. Maybe even turns and looks at PU and says "Hey, she's in my way", should that be called interference? While I fully understand that you would like the rules to be some form of the above, they simply currently are not. The batter-runner must both be outside the running lane and must actually interfere with the throw to first base. The fact that the first half of the sentence is true does not make the second half true.