You make the call. Umpire for the day!

[Greenmonsters]

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.

This is where we have a fundamental problem - the running lane is in foul territory yet the base is in fair territory.

 

[MTR]

Amazing. At least four qualified umpires have been explaining every portion of this play as the rule apply and there are still people trying to apply non-applicable rules and effects.

And if the umpire truly used the term "obstruction", the umpire was no more qualified than the ball.

 

[ms244]

Amazing. At least four qualified umpires have been explaining every portion of this play as the rule apply and there are still people trying to apply non-applicable rules and effects.

And if the umpire truly used the term "obstruction", the umpire was no more qualified than the ball.

Yes the umpire did "truly used the term obstruction". I was standing along the first baseline and heard the explanation from the HU and FU to our HC. That was one of the reasons that I posted this topic to be discussed here on DFP.

 

[Lenski]

At the end of the day it is a judgement call. The umpires came to the conclusion that the BR interfered (obstructed...lol) with the 1B. They had to feel that the throw was quality (read reasonably catchable) causing the 1B not to be able to complete the double play. The umpires had to come to the conclusion that if the BR had not interfered with the 1B (in fair territory) she would have indeed completed the double play. Without video we'll never know or even be able to re-create the situation. We're only getting the story of one observer, and it appears the umpires saw the situation differently.

 

[MTR]

Okay, read everything, the verbiage is obvious absurd and shows the lack of rules knowledge of the umpires.

However, I'm still trying to get a visual on the play

Runner on first. 1 out. Batter squares up to bunt and pops the bunt up in the air between pitcher and 1B. Runner on 1st takes off to 2B (it was a hit & run play). The batter runs directly to first base and is in the baseline. There is no orange bag on this diamond and she runs directly to the base. The pitcher makes an awesome play by stretching out and caught the ball before hitting the ground. Base runner on 1st sees that the play is an out and attempts to return to 1B. The batter continues to run to 1B because she doesn't know the ball was caught. The pitcher makes a poor throw to 1B from her knees and pulls the first basemen off the bag and the batter and first basemen collide on the baseline.

If F3 was pulled away from the base, was there still a play with which the retired BR interfered? IOW, would F3 still have been able to catch the ball, stop and return to the base prior to R1's return?

 

[Ajaywill]

No one has mentioned this yet....

The running lane rule only applies to a batter-runner. We don't have one of those in the OP.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

No one has mentioned this yet....

The running lane rule only applies to a batter-runner. We don't have one of those in the OP.

Umpire essentially said that in post #15...

1) The 3-foot lane is entirely irrelevant here because there is no play on the batter-runner at 1st base. The batter-runner is already out.

Doesn't a retired BR have to abide by the rules of a BR to avoid being called for interference?