how would you ruled this?

[SoCal_Dad]

So the runner is supposed to turn her head to make sure she's not in the catcher's "throwing" lane?

I presume this is directed at RT1 because I simply clarified there were 2 different terms in the posts.

However, as someone else posted, runners can roughly gauge the throwing lane based on how the fielder is set up to receive the throw.

 

[MTR]

This is where I disagree with you.....the retired batter slowing down and slightly moving out of the baseline to first base is the "act" of interference, in my judgement. Had she continued to run towrd first base at the same speed, I would have no interference.

It seems I am in the minority amongst my fellow blues....

To start, you know better to raise the issue of a base line. Completely irrelevant in any rule. After watching frame by frame, I do not believe she was doing anything more than following the standard path a RHB takes into foul territory when advancing to 1B. Do not be distracted by her turning her shoulders to look.

IMO, there was no act to interfere. Looking for boogers? This is one and IMO, not a justifiable call.

Found this in a 2007 ASA rule clarification writeup -

Three-Foot Running Lane

... After the batter becomes the batter-runner and they reach the start of the three-foot running lane, it is their responsibility to run inside the lane on the way to first base so as not to interfere with the throw to first base. However, an exception is made when the ball is being thrown from the foul side of first base. In this case, the three-foot running lane transfers to the fair side of the foul line where the runner is protected while running to the white portion of first base.

Not relevant, this was not a BR, but a retired player. However, to follow through on the interpretation. It is not completely accurate since a 3' violation applies not to interfering with the throw, but a defender's ability to receive the ball @ 1B. Also, since an adjustment by the BR is not mandatory, the 3' lane actually expands (as opposed to transfer) to the inside of the foul line in the event the runner elects to move in that direction.

 

[Ajaywill]

To start, you know better to raise the issue of a base line. Completely irrelevant in any rule.

MTR....of course I know better.

I only mentioned the baseline as a point of reference, not releated to any rule that dictates where the runner must run, especially since there isn't any such rule.

I (my judgement) see this play similar to the runner going from first to second that is put out at second, then "veers off" one direction or the other and is hit by the throw to first base attempting the double play.

In the OP, the "veering off" isn't much, but it is there. Again, my judgement.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one, my friend!

 

[CoogansBluff]

I (my judgement) see this play similar to the runner going from first to second that is put out at second, then "veers off" one direction or the other and is hit by the throw to first base attempting the double play.

In the OP, the "veering off" isn't much, but it is there. Again, my judgement.

I like the analogy to a play at second.

However, I have this question - If the runner in the OP was ''veering off'', then isn't it significant that the ball struck her on the left shoulder as she was ''veering off'' to the right? If she'd not ''veered off'', then the throw would've still hit her, and in fact more squarely in the back, right? If she veered, she was veering away from the throw, which hit her on the left shoulder. I'm not even sure she veered off, but if she did, what effect did it have? I certainly don't see that she veered enough to cause a collision between herself and the ball. She was destined to be hit, veer or no veer, IMHO.

 

[mySoftballTournament]

Batter is out, runner is safe. She did not intentionally turn into the throw. She was hit with the ball within inches of the base line. It is not the runners' responsibility to avoid being hit by a thrown ball.

 

[Rocketech1]

It is not the runners' responsibility to avoid being hit by a thrown ball.

It depends, isn't there a rule that if a runner is going from 1st to 2nd base and the defense is tying to turn a double play you need to get out of the way (either slide, etc.)? Don't have the ASA rulebook in front of me.

 

[BretMan]

It depends, isn't there a rule that if a runner is going from 1st to 2nd base and the defense is tying to turn a double play you need to get out of the way (either slide, etc.)?

No, no, a thousand times no!

This is one of the most prevalent "rule myths" that pop up on a regular basis.

Generally, if a runner is running straight at a base, they can continue on that path immediately after being declared out. You can't expect them to vanish, they aren't required to slide, stop, duck or dodge and if they veer off out of the baseline they might move into the throwing lane the fielder has chosen (unless they can read minds).

The realistic expectation for a runner who is advancing straight into a base is that they will be directly in the baseline- even for a few moments after being put out. It's up to the defense to work around them

 

[MTR]

Batter is out, runner is safe. She did not intentionally turn into the throw. She was hit with the ball within inches of the base line. It is not the runners' responsibility to avoid being hit by a thrown ball.

No. Cannot be clearer and only typed that because my simple answer is too short

 

[Rocketech1]

Generally, if a runner is running straight at a base, they can continue on that path immediately after being declared out.

Ok, please cite section in the rule book that states the above.

"Per ASA, Section 7 - Runner is Out

J. When a Runner interferes:
3. With a thrown ball"

"Supplemental Rules: #33 - Interference

Interference is the act of an offense player or team member that impedes, hinders, or confuses the defensive players attempt to make a play......Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field OR throw the ball without being hindered."

One could argue that the rules are written so as to give the defense every opportunity to make a play, including a thrown ball. It also doesn't say that the "hindering" has to be intentional to be interference.

 

[Comp]

Key word "act". Simply running the bases is not an act of interference. Also, the wording "or throw the ball" has nothing to do with a thrown ball in flight, it is referencing the defensive players ability to physically throw the ball without interference.