Home to First Running Lane

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Mar 14, 2017
453
43
Michigan
I'm watching NCAA softball today and I noticed there is no chalked running lane between home and first.

Are the rules different in NCAA, or do they just not chalk it?

Are there rule sets that don't use the running lane? I just watched a HS and a LL game and both had it chalked.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
NCAA just doesnt chalk it anymore, it still exists though. I know of no softball or baseball rule set that does not have a running lane.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
NCAA just doesnt chalk it anymore, it still exists though. I know of no softball or baseball rule set that does not have a running lane.
NCAA did away with the runner's lane a couple years ago, deeming it illogical to require runners to deviate from a straight path to 1B. Looks like INT for B-R is now called the same as for base runners at the rest of the bases. Here's their explanation and the rule before/after the change.

The last in the list of field-related issues is the deletion of the runner’s lane. Although a longtime tradition of the game, the runner’s lane is an enigma. It is the designated space for the batter-runner as she approaches first base and yet, coaches neither teach nor encourage their players to run there between contact with the pitch and contact with first base. There’s not a player in the game who doesn’t know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so it is counter intuitive to run from the batter’s box to the lane and then back into fair territory to touch first base. Batter-runners typically run that straight line to first base with little regard for the runner’s lane and so, for that reason, the lane was deleted as a required line on the field. But that said, there is no change in the batter-runner’s responsibility not to interfere with the player receiving the throw at first base.

Before (from 2014-2015 rules):
12.19.1.4 The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder’s attempt to throw or to receive a thrown ball. For example:
12.19.1.4.1 The batter-runner may not slide into first base to interfere with the play whether on her or another runner.
12.19.1.4.2 The batter-runner may not run outside the base runner’s lane and, in the umpire’s judgment, interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Exception: The batter-runner may run outside the runner’s lane: (a) if she has not yet reached the start of the runner’s lane; (b) to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; or (c) if she leaves the lane on her last stride in order to touch first base.
Notes:
1. The batter-runner has not interfered if a fielder does not throw, hesitates before throwing or makes an errant throw.
2. The batter-runner is considered outside the runner’s lane if either foot is completely outside either line and in contact with the ground.

Current:
12.19.1.3 The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder’s attempt to throw or to receive a thrown ball. For example:
12.19.1.3.1 The batter-runner may not slide into first base to interfere with the play whether on her or another runner.
12.19.1.3.2 The batter-runner may not run to first base in a manner that interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Notes: The batter-runner has not interfered if a fielder does not throw, hesitates before throwing or makes an errant throw.
 
Last edited:

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
BR has never been required to run in the 3' lane. What the lane provided was protection from an INT call, almost absolute sans specific actions by the BR to interfere.

And a BR does not need to enter fair territory prior to touching 1B. Removing the demarcation of the lane does nothing more than give the coaches one more opportunity to argue a judgment call.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
Removing the demarcation of the lane does nothing more than give the coaches one more opportunity to argue a judgment call.
All indications are the runner's lane is gone and B-R INT on the throw is now called same as runner INT on a throw at other bases. IOW, B-R can take a direct path to 1B in fair territory without liability of being called for INT as long as they don't do anything unusual to interfere with the throw.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
All indications are the runner's lane is gone and B-R INT on the throw is now called same as runner INT on a throw at other bases. IOW, B-R can take a direct path to 1B in fair territory without liability of being called for INT as long as they don't do anything unusual to interfere with the throw.


That isn't how the rule reads and I wonder if that is how it will be called.

12.19.1.3.2 The batter-runner may not run to first base in a manner that interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Notes: The batter-runner has not interfered if a fielder does not throw, hesitates before throwing or makes an errant throw.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
That isn't how the rule reads and I wonder if that is how it will be called.

12.19.1.3.2 The batter-runner may not run to first base in a manner that interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.
Notes: The batter-runner has not interfered if a fielder does not throw, hesitates before throwing or makes an errant throw.
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?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,831
Messages
679,484
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top