|
No Throw - No Interference?
For years we have followed a "No Throw - No Interference" caveat when a defender fails to throw because an offensive player is in their path. The common explanation is that we can not guess why a player did not throw. If there is no throw, then there is no play. If no play, then no interference.
Lately I have been seeing some cracks in that position. Especially with respect to a batter getting into the path of a catcher wanting to throw to 3B. Both Irish and Steve M posted on eteamz that an attempt to throw (something visible - maybe striding, maybe moving the arm forward) was enough for them to see a play, and thus call interference.
In a way, that makes some sense. If we can see a play developing, and then there is no throw, we can then assume that the presence of the O player interfered with the play.
But are we not opening a can of worms? What if the runner is too fast, or F6 is slow getting to position - and the catcher decides it is too late to throw? Would we be calling a runner out for simply being too good?
Suppose F3 fields a ground ball and attempts to throw to 2B to force R1 - who is in her throwing lane. F3 stops the throw and turns to tag 1B, but is too late. Is someone out?
The real kicker is the 3' lane violation. RH batter bunts and is running from well inside the foul line at an angle toward the outside of 1B. Just as F1 or F2 attempt to throw, the "big" B-R crosses their path and they can't see the diminutive F4 covering 1B. So the throw is aborted and F1 (F2) steps aside to find a clear throwing lane and it is too late. No throw means the catch by the fielder at 1B would never be interfered with - so no interference?
Your opinions.
WMB
|