Dropped 3rd, catcher hits runner.

[Fluid Fastpitch]

I had almost this exact play happen today, except my catcher hit the batter-runner square in the back while the runner was in fair territory. I asked the ump "she wasn't in the running lane" ump replied "in this case because of where the ball was dropped (right at the catchers feet), the catcher needed to have thrown, and the 1st baseman received the ball in foul territory. "
Looking for a legitimacy check from the DFP hive mind... USA rules. thanks!

 

[Strike2]

From the video, I don't see the field umpire calling "safe"...just "time". The plate umpire does call her out.

Not a great throw, but it hits the runner in the back at the belt line, not in the legs. It's a makeable play for the 1B IF the runner isn't in fair territory. Looks like an out to me.

 

[inumpire]

Here's video of the play:

She is out……never made any attempt to get to the runners lane.

 

[jackfrost]

I had almost this exact play happen today, except my catcher hit the batter-runner square in the back while the runner was in fair territory. I asked the ump "she wasn't in the running lane" ump replied "in this case because of where the ball was dropped (right at the catchers feet), the catcher needed to have thrown, and the 1st baseman received the ball in foul territory. "
Looking for a legitimacy check from the DFP hive mind... USA rules. thanks!

There are some further details needed in order to know for sure if the runner should have been called out.
1st - the catcher and F3 are never required to throw the ball in foul territory. It is easier for them to do so if the ball is retrieved by the catcher in foul territory. But they are never required to throw from foul territory.

2nd - if the F3 does set up on the foul side of the double base, the runner CAN stay in fair territory and not use the running lane. But the batter-runner is NOT REQUIRED to stay in fair territory.

3rd - in the case you describe, no matter where the catcher picked up the ball, if the F3 was set up on the fair side of the double base, the runner is required to not interfere with the F3s ability to catch the ball. By being in fair territory and more than half way to 1st base and interfering with the throw, she most likely should have been called for interference. The running lane starts 30 ft (half way to 1st base) to the bag. If she was half way or more and not in the running lane and got hit with a reasonably thrown ball, the runner should have been called out.

 

[bmakj]

Out, I think Catcher took a little off the throw as she realized she was going to hit the runner, but it still would have been playable for F3 (to me, if F3 can hold the bag and field the throw if not for the ball hitting runner, and runner was not in lane, it should be interference, ie in the dirt really not a disqualifier, 5 feet over the head or to either side, diffferent story).

 

[radness]

Gotta say video made me laugh at the nonchalant response of the catcher throwing and after throw pegged runner.
Kinda a casual play and move on type thing....

 

[radness]

Did anyone else think the catcher hit her intentionally?

It's not malicious, but I thought it looked like a 3/4 speed throw at the runner to use the rulebook to her advantage. Otherwise, I'd expect a high throw to get it over her. Instead we got a waist high throw that looked like she took some zip off it.

No. Think it was just dorky

Runner needs to get towards foul line by that point.

 

[MoJo]

I had almost this exact play happen today, except my catcher hit the batter-runner square in the back while the runner was in fair territory. I asked the ump "she wasn't in the running lane" ump replied "in this case because of where the ball was dropped (right at the catchers feet), the catcher needed to have thrown, and the 1st baseman received the ball in foul territory. "
Looking for a legitimacy check from the DFP hive mind... USA rules. thanks!

"What's the Point of the runner lane, ump"

Total crap. Just making things up.

Good run down of the rules above.

 

[Lance Steckler]

reminds me of way back in the dark ages, playing baseball. Everyone that bunted got pegged in the back. tended to not bunt again that game. Of course that was baseball, 'back in the day".

 

[JOHNN]

Did anyone else think the catcher hit her intentionally?

It's not malicious, but I thought it looked like a 3/4 speed throw at the runner to use the rulebook to her advantage. Otherwise, I'd expect a high throw to get it over her. Instead we got a waist high throw that looked like she took some zip off it.

I thought the same thing and had instant flashbacks to the ending of the All Stars movie haha