You make the call. Umpire for the day!

[Lenski]

The is an excerpt of ASA clarifications from 2007:

Three-Foot Running Lane

Recent changes to the Three-Foot Running Lane rule by other softball codes have prompted many umpires and coaches to ask the ASA for a clarification or interpretation of what constitutes a batter-runner being “in the lane” or “out of the lane”.

The ASA has always taught that the three-foot running lane starts at ground level and extends straight up on both sides. After the batter becomes the batter-runner and they reach the start of the three-foot running lane, it is their responsibility to run inside the lane on the way to first base so as not to interfere with the throw to first base. However, an exception is made when the ball is being thrown from the foul side of first base. In this case, the three-foot running lane transfers to the fair side of the foul line where the runner is protected while running to the white portion of first base. In ASA, if the thrown ball hits a body part that is inside the three-foot running lane, there is no interference. In other words, the umpire should judge the ball in relationship to the body part it strikes. If that body part is inside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane there is no violation, play on. Conversely, if the body part is outside the vertical plane of the three-foot running lane and is struck with the thrown ball, or the batter-runner interferes with the defense taking the throw while outside the three-foot running lane, the batter-runner is guilty of interference. The ball should be declared dead, the batter-runner should be called out and all runners should be returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference (Rule 8, Section 2 E).

 

[Comp]

It must be a quality throw to first. The throw was off line and drew F3 into the path of the runner, this is not interference.

 

[Comp]

So I agree with you it's a live ball but I still believe it's a delayed dead ball situation based on what the runner could do after her return to first base.

The runner between 1st and 2nd has in no way been affected on this play. She is responsible for her base running responsibilities and to tag up after the caught fly ball. The action between the batter/runner and F3 was a completely separate act and did not impede her prorgress in either direction. There is no obstruction on this play and absolutely no reason to protect the base runner. It is nothing but a live ball and play continues.

 

[dschreib]

Two points: First, if the collision occurred on the bag, then I believe the runner is allowed to come out of the lane in order to touch the bag if no safety base is used. Second, this post made me think of the double-play ruling when the forced runner gets hit with the exchange to first. It has to be intentional for interference to be called. (d) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.
(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

 

[BretMan]

....and here's my point of contention. Bret, what is the purpose of the running lane up the first base line? Here is the major league rule. Is the softball rule different?

The softball rule is basically the same, with a few minor nuances that don't really matter for this discussion. I can't disagree with any of the running lane rules or interpretations you've posted.

But you're missing an important element of this play!

If it was a bad throw that pulled the fielder away from the base, into the path of the runner, and that caused the collision, then it is the defense's fault and the runner isn't guilty of interference.

 

[Lenski]

It must be a quality throw to first. The throw was off line and drew F3 into the path of the runner, this is not interference.

A quality throw is a throw that can be caught, not a perfect throw. Also, the runner, according to the OP, was on the base line when contact was made, meaning the runner was in fair territory and not fully in the running lane. The umpire in his judgement must have felt the ball was catchable, therefore calling runner interference.

 

[Comp]

Apparently the umpires in the OP dont even know the difference between obstruction and interference, do you really think they know the rest of the rules also? At least 3 or more umpires in this thread have indicated this is not interference. A quality throw does not draw a defender off the base into the path of the runner to catch the ball.

Done.

 

[Lenski]

The softball rule is basically the same, with a few minor nuances that don't really matter for this discussion. I can't disagree with any of the running lane rules or interpretations you've posted.

But you're missing an important element of this play!

If it was a bad throw that pulled the fielder away from the base, into the path of the runner, and that caused the collision, then it is the defense's fault and the runner isn't guilty of interference.

I'm not missing an important element of this play. We know the throw pulled the fielder away from the base. That does not mean it was uncatchable. Also, the contact was in fair territory, where by rule the BR should have been in the running lane. Are you saying the BR, running to first base where there is a running lane, does not have to use the running lane, and is instead allowed to make contact with the first baseman in fair territory in front of the bag? If that's the case, why have a running lane?

 

[Lenski]

Apparently the umpires in the OP dont even know the difference between obstruction and interference, do you really think they know the rest of the rules also? At least 3 or more umpires in this thread have indicated this is not interference. A quality throw does not draw a defender off the base into the path of the runner to catch the ball.

Done.

Technically, the runner should not have been in fair territory, whether they were retired or not. They should have been in the running lane. Now, if the 1B gets pulled into foul territory from the errant throw, that's a different story.

 

[Lenski]

A quality throw does not draw a defender off the base into the path of the runner to catch the ball.

A quality throw is a throw that can be reasonably caught. This is something else we do not know in this situation. Pulling the 1B off the bag does not necessarily mean that the throw was uncatchable within reason.