Home to First Running Lane

SoCal_Dad said:

They removed all the runner's lane caca from the rule and the note clarifying what is considered being outside the lane. Obviously there is no longer a specific area where the runner isn't liable for INT.

Just last weekend a Sooner B-R was hit by a throw while clearly running in fair territory - no INT call because she didn't do anything to interfere, just took a direct path to 1B.

Their explanation makes it clear what they intended. Do we need to dumb it down for you?

Click to expand...

I'm well aware what they did. I just don't trust them (NCAA coaches) to keep it there. Used to be the runner moving from 1st to 2nd was not liable for INT without an act of INT. However, even though the rule has not changed, INT is being ruled on these retired runners. Why shouldn't a middle infielder just start throwing at the players?

How long do you think it will last as coaches start directing their players to stay in fair territory? There is a reason this rule has been in the softball rules for at least 81 years that I can document, probably longer

MTR said:

I'm well aware what they did. I just don't trust them (NCAA coaches) to keep it there. Used to be the runner moving from 1st to 2nd was not liable for INT without an act of INT. However, even though the rule has not changed, INT is being ruled on these retired runners. Why shouldn't a middle infielder just start throwing at the players?

Click to expand...

You didn't describe the circumstances of "INT is being ruled on these retired runners" - sounds like you're suggesting they're calling INT on retired runners when there's no act of INT. I watch quite a bit of college ball and don't recall it being called, so I doubt it's really an issue. If it becomes an issue - especially if MIF's are abusing it - I expect they'll tighten how the rule is called.

How long do you think it will last as coaches start directing their players to stay in fair territory? There is a reason this rule has been in the softball rules for at least 81 years that I can document, probably longer

Click to expand...

We're talking NCAA, so there aren't any safety bags. The main reasons to go into foul territory are to avoid a fielder or round 1B. Where they go in fair territory is the issue and I expect they'll clamp down on B-R's taking indirect routes to 1B.

SoCal_Dad said:

You didn't describe the circumstances of "INT is being ruled on these retired runners" - sounds like you're suggesting they're calling INT on retired runners when there's no act of INT.

Click to expand...

Exactly. First time I saw it was a few years ago, think it was a Big East game on TV. I've seen it a few times since and I'm sure I don't see as much college ball as you or many others. However, if you visit some umpire-centric boards, you will find people who believe and adamantly defend the thought that the lack of action is in itself an act of INT.

We're talking NCAA, so there aren't any safety bags. The main reasons to go into foul territory are to avoid a fielder or round 1B. Where they go in fair territory is the issue and I expect they'll clamp down on B-R's taking indirect routes to 1B.

Click to expand...

I hate the double base. IMO, it's mere existence is an indictment of coaches from youth to college ball who either ignore or just don't know how to teach 1st base mechanics. Some still use the position to hide some players. I cringe every time I see F3 begin to move into a stretch prior to the infielder moving into a throwing position.

However, the direct route for every batter-runner except for a LH deep in the box will always be in fair territory