Runner Interference

[UmpIowa]

I was watching a Minor League game tonight. BR lays a bunt right down the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and throws to the first baseman. The BR is running right down the baseline and is hit in the back. Plate umpire calls intereference BR out. This seemed odd to me. Is the runner supposed to stay in foul territory. As I read the rule it says interference must be intentional. The runner made no movement other than running right down the base path. Take it one step further what would the ruling be in FED?

[yawetag]

I was watching a Minor League game tonight. BR lays a bunt right down the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and throws to the first baseman. The BR is running right down the baseline and is hit in the back. Plate umpire calls intereference BR out. This seemed odd to me. Is the runner supposed to stay in foul territory. As I read the rule it says interference must be intentional. The runner made no movement other than running right down the base path. Take it one step further what would the ruling be in FED?

Do you understand what the running lane is? If not, I suggest you research that and let us know what you find.

Gentlemen, this is a teaching moment; let's not flame him.

[mazzamouth]

I know this one very well.. 6.05k... hell I can right it down verbatim ..LOL

[noumpere]

I was watching a Minor League game tonight. BR lays a bunt right down the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and throws to the first baseman. The BR is running right down the baseline and is hit in the back. Plate umpire calls intereference BR out. This seemed odd to me. Is the runner supposed to stay in foul territory. As I read the rule it says interference must be intentional. The runner made no movement other than running right down the base path. Take it one step further what would the ruling be in FED?

In this play the ruling would be the same and because of yawetags comment Ill refrain from further comment

[sdix00]

I was watching a Minor League game tonight. BR lays a bunt right down the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and throws to the first baseman. The BR is running right down the baseline and is hit in the back. Plate umpire calls intereference BR out. This seemed odd to me. Is the runner supposed to stay in foul territory. As I read the rule it says interference must be intentional. The runner made no movement other than running right down the base path. Take it one step further what would the ruling be in FED?

@walkerbm -

When you say, "As I read the rule" be very specific as to what rule(s) you are referring. Explain why you think it is or is not a violation.

You will learn a ton by exploring this first. You will know the rule forever if you do the homework.

[UmpIowa]

Ok so I researched the heck out of this one.

Fed rule

8-4-1g: The batter runner is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

8.4.1c: With R1 on third base, B2 hits a fair ground ball to F3 who

fields ball beyond first base. He throws to F2 attempting to retire R1. The throw hits B2 who is running on the foul line. RULING: B2 has not interfered, since he was running in the prescribed base path.

The case seems very similar to the play that I witnessed. Trying to remember exactly how the play occured the runner may have been right down the base path which would mean that his left foot would have gone beyond the line and the running lane. Thanks guys.

[mstaylor]

The runner's lane is the same in all rulebooks and how to determine if he is in or out. What is different is the play being made on the runner is different. In Fed if the runner isn't in the lane then you are ruling could the catcher make a throw. In other codes you are deciding can the fielder make the play which requires a quality throw.

[yawetag]

Exactly. So, in OP, as long as the runner was within the lines, he shouldn't have been called out.