Should anything have been called?

[default]

... The rule says that a batter-runner cannot be out of the lane AND interfere with the fielder at first base receiving the throw. If she does BOTH, then the ball is dead and she is out.

If the batter-runner runs out of the lane, but does not interfere with the fielder taking the throw, then it isn't interference. So the rule isn't really that she must be inside the lane. It's that if she is out of it, she's liable to be called for interference.

If the throw hits her while in the lane, then it's nothing- live ball, play on. ...

If the batter-runner is partially in the lane and gets hit by a throw, doesn't the location of where she is hit determine whether it is interference or not? I recall a post on HB that it's only interference if hit on the portion outside the lane because the portion within the lane is protected. This could account for some apparent discrepancies in calls vs. non-calls.

ASA Rule 8-2.E says the batter-runner is also protected in fair territory if the fielder covering 1B sets up in foul territory to receive a throw from the foul side of 1B (e.g. uncaught 3rd strike). Is the B-R still protected in the lane in this situation?

 

[default]

If the batter-runner is partially in the lane and gets hit by a throw, doesn't the location of where she is hit determine whether it is interference or not?

Well, I was trying to keep it simple...

Different sanctioning bodies do interpret this rule differently. Even though the actual rule in, say, the ASA or high school/NFHS rule book reads almost identically, they each have a different interpretation of what constitutes being "out of the running lane".

For ASA, what you posted above is correct. Even if both of the batter-runner's feet are inside the lane, if the ball hits a part of the body outside of the lane (like an elbow or shoulder sticking out over the line), then the B/R is considered to be out of the running lane. So, you could have a B/R with both feet entirely inside the lane, but still get an interference call if the throw hits her outside of the lane.

For high school/NFHS, they interpret being out of the running lane as when at least one of the B/R's feet is on the ground completely outside of the lane. Here, as long as both feet are inside the lane the B/R cannot be called for interference if the throw hits her- even if it hits part of her body that is outside the lines.

Pretty crazy, huh? I don't have a point by point comparison for every sanctioning body out there, but you might have some varying interpretations for other organizations. As far as I'm aware, the ASA interpretation is unique and they might be the only santioning body that calls it that way. And, no, you won't find this in either of their rule books. The interpretations are published in the case book or other interpretive literature.

On your other point...

ASA and NFHS are the same here. When a double first base is in use, on plays where the fielder is using the colored base to make the play (which they are allowed to do in limited situations), then the batter-runner is allowed to use the white base if she chooses. In these cases, the three-foot running lane is essentially "mirrored" across the foul line, so that you now have a six-foot wide running lane the B/R can be inside of to avoid an interference call.