Is RLI a one way street?

[marriard]

@marriard Reread the question, the throw is to F2 to try to retire the runner at the plate.

Ah- my mis-read. There is still no call or interference unless she intentionally moved to be hit by the throw.

No different to the ball being live if the ball hit the runner at home and bounced away - no call, play on.

 

[EdLovrich]

How does an umpire determine "intent" on a play like this?

By the actions of the runner: Did she veer to put herself in the path of the throw, did she reach up and swat at the ball, etc.

 

[EdLovrich]

C. Lane is only for throws going to 1B.

Definitely C
But, I bet you could sure end up with an argument on that one

OP's question often appears on umpire tests. Speaking NFHS, the question is similar to casebook play 8.2.6A.
The running lane is about a fielder receiving a throw at 1st base and is irrelevant to OP's situation.

Ah- my mis-read. There is still no call or interference unless she intentionally moved to be hit by the throw.

No different to the ball being live if the ball hit the runner at home and bounced away - no call, play on.

Four chocolate chip cookies for the correct answer.

RLI applies to play at first and throws to a fielder there. The interference has to hinder the fielder's opportunity to catch the ball. Without intent to interfere with the throw you have nothing.

 

[Shiloh]

With R3 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields the ball beyond first base. F3 throws to F2 attempting to retire R3. The throw hits B2 who is running in fair territory in the last half of the distance to 1B and does not intentionally interfere with the ball. ​

What say you, umpires?​

A: This is interference, B2 is out and R3 is returned to third base.
B: This is interference, B2 is out and R3 is out.
C: This is not interference.

C

 

[Strike2]

By the actions of the runner: Did she veer to put herself in the path of the throw, did she reach up and swat at the ball, etc.

Forget veering or reaching up to swat the ball, if the batter-runner is fully in fair territory, and is in the line of the throw Home, you're probably getting one heck of an "intent" argument from any half-awake coach.

 

[marriard]

Forget veering or reaching up to swat the ball, if the batter-runner is fully in fair territory, and is in the line of the throw Home, you're probably getting one heck of an "intent" argument from any half-awake coach.

That wont make the coach right.

 

[CoachJD]

Forget veering or reaching up to swat the ball, if the batter-runner is fully in fair territory, and is in the line of the throw Home, you're probably getting one heck of an "intent" argument from any half-awake coach.

Except in this case, it's no different than if a runner (who had not yet been retired, which is vital here) is hit with a thrown ball between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd. In those cases, there's no expectation of a runner not being in the way. Better yet, there is no expectation whatsoever of a runner running in foul territory between third and home. Why would there be here?

 

[Strike2]

Except in this case, it's no different than if a runner (who had not yet been retired, which is vital here) is hit with a thrown ball between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd. In those cases, there's no expectation of a runner not being in the way. Better yet, there is no expectation whatsoever of a runner running in foul territory between third and home. Why would there be here?

Except in this case, and unlike running to 2B or 3B, it's unusual to run fully in fair territory to 1B. There's only one reason someone does it, and that's to screw up a play.

 

[mmeece]

Except in this case, and unlike running to 2B or 3B, it's unusual to run fully in fair territory to 1B. There's only one reason someone does it, and that's to screw up a play.

It's not at all unusual for the BR to run entirely in fair territory. Happens a large percentage of the time in fact.

 

[EdLovrich]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

-Hanlon's Razor