how would you ruled this?

[CoogansBluff]

Both runners out. Batter/baserunner looks back and sees the ball is going to be caught and drifts into the path of the throw (whether or not it was intentional doesn't matter) and thereby interferes with the play.

I don't see much, if any, drift. When struck, her left foot is still a foot or less from the foul line. Also, she was hit on the LEFT shoulder. So assuming she did drift to the right, that actually decreased her chances of being hit since she would've been hit more squarely in the back by not veering (if in fact she veered).

The more I read and discuss, I'm back to saying one out, no interference. There's nowhere for the runner to go. She's in a position that is reasonable for a batter/runner - foul territory on a path toward 1B. There is no proof/evidence of intent.

And while this might not be a factor in how the play should be called, why should the batter/runner be penalized for running to first, and why should a bad throw be rewarded? F2 had all day to get the ball to 1B for the out. The runner on first was almost at second when the ball was caught. Then the catcher throws a ball into the back of the batter going running toward first in foul territory.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Not completely accurate ASA 8-2-E "When the defensive player uses the foul portion of the double first base, the batter-runner can run in fair territory when the throw is coming from the foul side of 1st base, and if hit by the thrown ball, it is not interference. If intentional interfernce is ruled, the runner is out."

In the video posted, F3 was set up on the fair side of 1st base, and not even sure the runner had even reached the running lane at the time she was hit with the ball anyway.

That makes sense b/c the batter/runner can't always tell where the ball is behind her and must take her cue from where F3 is setting up.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

I agree with you. The batter/baserunner peels off to the right, into the throwing lane, instead of continuing on a straight path to first base. This is important because the catcher is throwing from an angle from the left handed batters box in foul territory. Had she caught the ball right at home plate and made the same throw to 1st the batter/baserunner would likely not have been hit by the ball since she is moving away from the baseline towards the 1st base dugout. The plate umpire had a perfect view of this play and was is in a great position to see it unfold, so I would defer to his judgment on this one.

Let me get this straight - you're OK with the runner being penalized for being in the running lane (where she's supposed to be)?

A "throwing lane" is not the 3-foot "running" lane.

 

[Rocketech1]

I understand where you guys are coming from and some of you are trained umpires that know the rules better than I do. What would the batter/baserunner have had to do in your mind for it to be intentional interference. For example, as soon as the ball was caught and the batter/baserunner immediately stopped in her tracks and the thrown ball hit her, would that be enough for you to call interference or does it have to be more obvious such as she intentionally moves her body directly into the path of the thrown ball? Obviously the rules were written so that you don't have the offense purposely interfering with the play nor do you want the defense to intentionally throw balls at the baserunners to get an easy out.

 

[Ajaywill]

I said it once before, but I guess most missed it or chose to ignore it....


THE RUNNING LANE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PLAY!!!!!!!

The 3 foot running lane is only applicable to a batter-runner. A batter-runner is defined as player that is legally attempting to advance from home to first and HAS NOT YET BEEN PUT OUT!

Once the fly ball was caught, she turned from a batter-runner to a retired runner. The protection from interfering provided by the running lane no longer applies. As a retired runner, she has to "do something" to interfere. This is a judgement call by the umpire (should have been PU in this case). I feel that her slowing and starting to drift away from her path to first qualifies as interference.

As I mentioned earlier, I seem to be the minority opinion amongst my fellow blues.

 

[Greenmonsters]

I said it once before, but I guess most missed it or chose to ignore it....


THE RUNNING LANE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PLAY!!!!!!!

The 3 foot running lane is only applicable to a batter-runner. A batter-runner is defined as player that is legally attempting to advance from home to first and HAS NOT YET BEEN PUT OUT!

Once the fly ball was caught, she turned from a batter-runner to a retired runner. The protection from interfering provided by the running lane no longer applies. As a retired runner, she has to "do something" to interfere. This is a judgement call by the umpire (should have been PU in this case). I feel that her slowing and starting to drift away from her path to first qualifies as interference.

As I mentioned earlier, I seem to be the minority opinion amongst my fellow blues.

So, using this logic, any batter running to 1B after a strike out in a non-DTS situation would be interfering, right?

 

[CoogansBluff]

A batter-runner is defined as player that is legally attempting to advance from home to first and HAS NOT YET BEEN PUT OUT!


Once the fly ball was caught, she turned from a batter-runner to a retired runner. The protection from interfering provided by the running lane no longer applies.

Can you show the rule that defines a batter/runner as a player who has not yet been put out? Not arguing, just want to see it.

Also, I for one am not saying that she is protected by being in the running lane. Maybe she is, or isn't, I don't know. But below, you say she has to ''do something'' to interfere. Well, one thing she didn't do was get out of the running lane.

As a retired runner, she has to "do something" to interfere. This is a judgement call by the umpire (should have been PU in this case). I feel that her slowing and starting to drift away from her path to first qualifies as interference.

Don't understand how slowing down can be interference. She's put out, and she slows down. How is that interference? What is she supposed to do? Are you saying she interfered for failing to maintain speed to first? Also how is she ''starting to drift away''? The ball hit her in the left shoulder. If she's drifting away, then she's actually going away from the throw, not into it. So even if she's drifting away, which I hardly see since she remains very close to the foul line, that didn't cause her to be hit. If she'd drifted into the throw, then maybe there's a case.

 

[SoCalASABlue]

A "throwing lane" is not the 3-foot "running" lane.

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

 

[Comp]

Can you show the rule that defines a batter/runner as a player who has not yet been put out? Not arguing, just want to see it.

ASA rule 1, definitions.

Batter-runner: A player who has completed a turn at bat but has not yet been put out or reached first base.

 

[CoogansBluff]

ASA rule 1, definitions.

Batter-runner: A player who has completed a turn at bat but has not yet been put out or reached first base.

Thank you.

OK, so now it should be a matter of what protection does this player now have. ...

Is anyone saying that this runner has no protection, that if she's in the way, whether intended or not, that she has interefered?

Or, does she have to do something out of the ordinary to interfere?

What do the rules say about that?

As an aside, this reminds me of the 1978 World Series and Reggie Jackson's sacrifice hip. ... He was forced out at second and allowed the ball to hit him as the Dodgers attempted a double play. Umpire called no interference. Part of the controversy there was that Jackson appeared to stick his hip out to ensure that it hit him. But it would seem that Jackson, despite being forced out already, had some right to be where he was if the umpire didn't immediately call interference.