What is the correct call?

[coachump4]

HS game ground ball to short makes a high throw to 1st. 1st baseman jumps to catch it and the runner is running down the line not in the running lane and plows over 1st baseman not malicious but never tried to avoid contact.  HC for the batting team wanted to complain about not being touched with the glove which he did.  Guess my question is even if he wasn't touched by the glove would he still had an out for running over the 1st baseman?

[BuckeyeMike]

Running lane in this play is irrelevant......it only applies when a throw originates from around the home plate area. 

 

I'd have to see this for myself, but with just the description, it sounds like a "Play on" or train wreck.  No out.

UNLESS the throw pulled F3 into the path of the BatterRunner.....then we have an OBS on F3.

[ricka56]

Maybe...if F3 had the ball, then 8-4-2c may apply (out).

Maybe...if F3 didn't have the ball when/if he jumped into BR's path, then 2-22-3 may apply (obstruction, award BR 1B).

 

HTBT

[coachump4]

He did have the ball in his glove

[ricka56]

He did have the ball in his glove

 

But did he have the ball when he got in BR's way ? Sounds like he rec'd the throw late if he couldn't get a tag on him.  This is a tough call. I could explain it either way, but one HC is not going to be happy.

[ElkOil]

If F3 was in the process of catching the ball and didn't yet possess it, you could call interference.  The running lane only protects the runner from being hit by a thrown ball, not from interfering with a fielder.  But you could also have OBS if F3 got in the way of the BR.  

 

Not having been there, obviously, it's hard to determine, but your characterization of the BR "plowing" into F3, not attempting to avoid him makes me think MC may be appropriate, so an out and EJ would follow if that were the case.

[coachump4]

100% confident not malicious the ball was in the glove and he did tag him.   Just wandering if I could have used rule 8.4.2c in this case of him not avoiding the fielder

[maven]

If you post a video of it, we can help assess this judgment call.

 

This could be INT, OBS, or nothing. Very difficult to tell from a mere verbal description (which is not your fault, just saying it's difficult to tell).

[ElkOil]

100% confident not malicious the ball was in the glove and he did tag him.   Just wandering if I could have used rule 8.4.2c in this case of him not avoiding the fielder

 

Sure you could.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Could go either way, Too many "ifs" withouth being there.............IF  IF  IF

 

 

IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ when he hopped

[maven]

IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ when he hopped

 

Why would he hop?

[Blueump]

If F3 was in the process of catching the ball and didn't yet possess it, you could call interference.

Not on a throw from another player!

[ElkOil]

 

If F3 was in the process of catching the ball and didn't yet possess it, you could call interference.

Not on a throw from another player!

 

 

FED 2-21-1a

[Blueump]

If F3 was in the process of catching the ball and didn't yet possess it, you could call interference.

Not on a throw from another player!

 

FED 2-21-1a

I'm only calling interference on this play if I have intent. You should never reward the defense for a bad throw. Interference is only called on a runner who interferes with a fielder's initial attempt to play a batted ball (step & reach) or intentional interference - not a player who is run into after having to adjust to a bad throw. The FED case book backs this up!

[noumpere]

 

IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ when he hopped

 

Why would he hop?

 

Maybe he likes bumping his ass.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.