Running Lane Interference breakdown

[The Man In Blue]

Just watching the US - Mexico game. How was this not interference on the batter-runner (Aguilar) 2:30 in the highlight vid? Not saying it's a great throw, but Augilar is full on in fair territory.

USA remains perfect after win over Mexico

Osterman, USA Softball move to a perfect 3-0 in pool play after 2-0 win vs. Mexico.

www.nbcolympics.com

Although we use the term "Running Lane Interference" you will not find that term in any of the rulebooks. Just a fun fact. Also, the terms "running lane" and "runner's lane" are used interchangeably with some codes preferring one or the other and some codes using both.

I am not familiar with the intricacies of international rules, but the video provided by @gertrudethemutilator provides a great look at the play which we can use to examine the rules in our "common codes" (NFHS, NCAA, USA, and USSSA).

In the common codes, the running lane is consistent: the lane starts half way (30 feet) down the baseline from home to first and extends in foul territory three feet. It runs parallel to the base line for the duration of the run to first base. It should be marked, but the lack of of chalk or paint does not negate the rule.

In order to call a batter-runner out for RLI, there are two basic questions to start with (regardless of code):

1. Was she outside the running lane?
2. Did she interfere?

In the Olympic video, I think we can agree that she was clearly outside of the running lane. Every code states that a runner must have a foot on the ground entirely outside the chalk line. I think we can agree that burden has been met.




The next question is trickier ... and I think this may have been the source of a point of view @EdLovrich was making in another thread on this topic.

Requirement #2: Did she interfere?

We have a couple of things happening now ... first and foremost is the judgment of the umpire and we can't really debate that. Obviously something happened here: either the umpires did not judge there was interference or maybe international rule is different on this and I am not aware. I will offer a critique on the umpire mechanics though: the umpire retreated into foul territory to take this play. This is becoming an accepted mechanic in multi-umpire crews on certain plays. In this play, I feel by doing this she lost her angle and may not have noticed the runner was outside the lane. The plate umpire appears to have a great look, though he may be blocked by the batter-runner.

Second is determining what was "interfered with." NFHS, NCAA, and USA all state the interference MUST be with the fielder taking the throw, not the throw itself. A throw hitting a runner is not, in and of itself, interference. The throw is somewhat irrelevant (other than it must happen -- a catcher "no throw" is on the catcher -- and it must be catchable). We must focus on the fielder's actions and if the runner interfered with the fielder.

In this case, I would say unquestionably "yes." The throw was on line and headed to the fielder's glove when it hit the batter runner who was outside the running lane. The batter runner's helmet even hits the fielders glove.



You hear the commentator say "that was a bad throw." No, no it wasn't. Throwing down the line was possibly an ill-advised play as opposed to throwing more to the field side, but the throw was a good catchable throw.

I held out USSSA because they have some funky-butt wording. I would even say they have some terrible wording. The batter-runner is out:

"When they run outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. EXCEPTION: This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw."

Now, I believe their intent was to apply that to a batter-runner who is trying to avoid a fielder in the act of making a play in a place that would prevent the runner from staying in the lane. However, that is NOT what they say. They say "When they run outside the three-foot running lane ... while the ball is being fielded ..." That could be ANYWHERE on the field. Of course, this makes no sense! This may have been what @EdLovrich was referring to.

Any way you slice it, I have to say I see interference on that play.

It is also important to know your codes because the penalty is different in different codes. The batter-runner is out in all codes (of course), however what happens to the runners may differ. Some codes place them back based on their position at the time of the pitch while others place them back based on the time of the interference.

 

[Fluid Fastpitch]

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, TMIB. It was so obvious, I literally shouted "What??? Where's the interference call?" at the screen. Either the umps were sleeping or the rule is different. /shrug