R/i
 

Dropped third strike, 2 outs.
Catcher retrieves ball in foul territory on first base side. His throw hits the b/r who's running in fair territory. Int?

Play on.

The scenario is a bit sketchy, but let's assume that the runner is somewhere along the second half of the baseline leading to first, ie, the running lane. bob, do you say play on because OBR requires a quality throw, which is unlikely here where the catcher is in foul territory and the runner in fair? That is, a quality throw would have been to the foul-side of the base.

Or because if the BR had not yet reached the running lane, there is no running lane violation?

I don't work school ball, so I'm not sure about this: am I correct that FED does not require a quality throw? If not, this could be a running lane violation if the BR interfered with the fielder's opportunity to catch the throw, right?

I know you asked Bob, but, I would say yes to the first. I don't believe the second question is relevant but, unless intentional, would be true.

You are correct, FED only requires a throw, but I learned the hard way on that one. In the OP, what did the BR INT with? Nothing, which is what I would have in FED 8-4-1g(1)

Fed Interp but it generally applies in other codes:

SITUATION 19: B1 bunts and F2 fields the ball in fair territory in front of home plate. B1 is running in foul territory when F2, in fair territory, throws errantly and hits B1 in the back. B1 continues running and touches first base. RULING: The play stands. F2 made an errant throw. Although B1 was not in the running lane, his position did not interfere with F2’s throw. (8-4-1g Exception)

Rules like that are among the reasons why I don't work NFHS baseball.

Sorry, bob, I did not mean your "explanation" but the official ruling.

It is a perfectly rational official ruling.

So you say. But if FED does not require a quality throw, what does it matter that the throw was "errant"? Could the first baseman have had a play on catching the ball? The BR is in foul territory yet not in the running lane. If he's not in the running lane and if he were hit by the throw and that prevented the first baseman from catching the ball, how is that not a RLV?

Was the BR in the running lane? No.
Was the throw "errant"? Yes.
Is a quality throw required in FED? No.
Did the BR interfere with the fielder receiving the throw? Yes.

In FED terms,
Was the BR outside the three-foot running lane? Yes
Was he doing so while the ball was being fielded or thrown to first base? Yes.

It is an official ruling, but perfectly rational? Either facts are left out or are unclear--what exactly does "errant" mean here? how far off base?--or the ruling itself is not supported by the rule itself.

But I'm open to the suggestion that I'm missing something. If I am, please point it out--a conclusory statement does not show me my error.

If the throw went 90 degrees off target and toward the stands would you excuse that? There comes a point where it's the thrower's fault.

If the throw went 90 degrees off target and toward the stands would you excuse that?

F2 had a clear lane to throw.

There comes a point where it's the thrower's fault.

Sure, but that's a judgment ("at some point"), based on specific facts. But the case play omits them: how "errant" was the throw, where was the BR when hit, where was the first baseman, did he have a chance to catch the throw? All relevant questions about the facts.

Moreover, as I said earlier, why use the term "errant" without more specifics, if a quality throw is not necessary?

A "quality throw" is not necessary when the runner is between F2 (usually) and F3. FED doesn't want to encourage F2 to plunk the BR, and doesn't want the umpire to have to judge whether F2 erred or threw wiled in an attempt to not hit the BR.

When BR is NOT between F2 and F3 (i.e., one is in fair territory and one is in foul territory), just treat it like a regular play.

FED has taken (most of) the judgment out of this.