Interference?

[plsjms94]

How did the BR interfere?

That was exactly our question! They said the runnerhad one foot in fair territory when running to first. The UIC told our head coach he didn't know the rule. Plate ump was overheard telling opposing team's coach that we were all a bunch of "idiot a******s".

 

[MTR]

That was exactly our question! They said the runnerhad one foot in fair territory when running to first. The UIC told our head coach he didn't know the rule. Plate ump was overheard telling opposing team's coach that we were all a bunch of "idiot a******s".

A foot in fair territory is nothing. This is another simple rule people, players, coaches, fans and umpire alike, seem to want to twist and turn around a play.

The 3' lane issue is not a restriction on where the BR can run, but where they can run and not being called out for interfering with a play other than that on a batted ball (unless intentional). It should also be noted that the rule isn't interfering with the throw, but with the defender's (covering 1B) ability to receive a relatively accurate throw while making a play on the BR at 1B. Simply being hit by a thrown ball, in or outside of that lane is nothing, but a mark in the morning.

When it comes down to it, a runner/batter-runner can run anywhere they please, but are still subject to rules on interference, including a BR reversing direction toward the plate.

Stepping on the white portion WHEN THERE IS A PLAY at 1st by the BR is also nothing in many, if not most, rule sets other than to be treated as a missed base. That means the defense must make a live ball appeal prior to the runner returning to the base.

In this play, the only thing I see that could possible be called is that the BR's movement out of the lane to touch the white portion of the base interfered with the defender's ability to catch the ball. I'm not saying that is the ruling as it sounds to me like the defender just did not make the play and was hit with the ball.

 

[plsjms94]

Our coaches argued the call for about 20 minutes and insisted the UIC come over but the call still stood. We lost the game, but afternour coach (who is a former umpire) took the rule book over to the UIC to show him the rule and suggest he study it.

 

[MTR]

Our coaches argued the call for about 20 minutes and insisted the UIC come over but the call still stood. We lost the game, but afternour coach (who is a former umpire) took the rule book over to the UIC to show him the rule and suggest he study it.

What rule did he show the umpire?

 

[tcannizzo]

I don't know the reason for the umpire's call.

Here is the sequence of events:

(1) There is a runner at 1st.
(2) Batter bunts the ball down the first base line. 1B charges, 2B goes to cover first. It is an excellent bunt, and rolls down the 1B line. The batter has some wheels.
(3) Catcher fields the ball about 30 feet from 1B and throws a bullet.
(4) The batter-runner, 2B covering first and the ball arrive at the white bag (there is a double bag) at the same time.
(5) 2B (covering first) takes her eye off the ball, and it hits her (*not* the batter runner) in the shoulder. Ball rolls into the outfield.
(6) Umpire calls batter-runner out.

Fuggetabout the wheels on BR, how about dem wheels on F2? F3 charging and F2 beats her to the ball? Dayum!