Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
The rule specifically states interference with a fielder TAKING a throw. Not making a throw. A catcher who makes a bad throw for fear of hitting a BR (who might end up back in the running lane by the time the ball gets there) is simply "Dumb Move Catcher".
|
As you say, rule 8-2-E states that the batter-runner is out
"When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane and, in the judgment of the umpire, interferes with the fielder TAKING the throw at first base;"
Is it your interpretation, mcrowder, that the interference has to be with the 1st baseman's receiving the ball? If so at what point does it become interference? Suppose we have a rabbit who is running outside the lane and the catcher has to take a step to the left to throw to first. Further suppose that that extra step the catcher had to make was enough for the batter-runner to beat out the throw.
Wouldn't you have interference here? What does "taking the throw" mean? Does this require direct interference with the 1st baseman, similar to a colision? Based on case plays I don't believe this is ASA's interp. If the batter-runnner is outside the lane and gets hit with the ball, this is interference, even if the batter-runner was just a few feet from home plate. They weren't interfering with the 1st baseman. They weren't intentionally interfering with the throw. It was just poor base running by the batter-runner.
Where in the rule book does it require a quality throw for it to be interference? I've never seen that phrase used. Is that implied or just an interpretation? The fact that the batter-runner was outside the lane may have caused the poor throw. The catcher may have adjusted her throw at the last moment causing the errant throw. Throwing the ball is part of "taking the throw". Ask yourself if the catcher would have thrown the ball differently had the batter-runner not been outside the lane. If so, then I believe we have interference.
Bottom line it all comes down to judgement. Quality throw is not part of the rule, per se. It may be implied. However, it can also be interpreted that if in the umpires opinion the batter-runner caused the errant throw then we could have interference.