Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
OBR 7.09k "It is interference by a batter or a runner when: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and in the umpires judgement, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball"
|
There must be a throw. It must be a quality throw (one capable of retiring a runner). A throw over the head and beyond his reach is not a quality throw. A throw on target and in the dirt is a quality throw (many balls are short hopped and caught---retiring a runner).
Note, however, the rule does not state interfering with the catcher's throw. Regardless of whether you felt the catcher threw poorly due to a runner's location, that's still not what the rule reads. Therefore, a runner outside the lane cannot
be the cause of the poor throw unless having interfered in some other manner other than merely being outside the lane.
Still, a quality throw need not be touched by the fielder.
If the throw is capable of retiring the runner, and it zooms over the shoulder of a runner outside the running lane and then untouched past the fielder, it is quite possible it was not caught due to the fielder being shielded from the throw. As Jim states, benefit of doubt should go to the defense when the runner is improperly outside the lane.
The exception I will provide is when the fielder is calling for the throw on the foul side of the bag after an uncaught 3rd strike and the runner moves to fair territory (outside the lane). The runner has then proven his intent NOT to interfere. I would not consider a throw striking him as cause for a lane violation. The intent of the rule is to disallow the runner to crash or shield from the throw the fielder attempting to make the catch.
Just my opinion,
Freix