Rule 8-4-1g

[scyguy]

Does this rule apply to all situations with a batter-runner within 45 feet of first? I understand on a bunt, uncaught third strike or slow roller in front of mound when defensive player is throwing up the line toward first and hits batter-runner who is outside the three foot boundary or batter-runner hinders first baseman interference occurs. But what about a throw from an infielder, say SS and the throw is between home and 1st, 1B comes off base toward home side to catch ball at about the same time runner is coming up the line. Collision occurs, but runner's left foot is on fair side of line. Dead ball, interference, batter-runner out, any other runners return to ball at TOP. Right??

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy
Does this rule apply to all situations with a batter-runner within 45 feet of first? I understand on a bunt, uncaught third strike or slow roller in front of mound when defensive player is throwing up the line toward first and hits batter-runner who is outside the three foot boundary or batter-runner hinders first baseman interference occurs. But what about a throw from an infielder, say SS and the throw is between home and 1st, 1B comes off base toward home side to catch ball at about the same time runner is coming up the line. Collision occurs, but runner's left foot is on fair side of line. Dead ball, interference, batter-runner out, any other runners return to ball at TOP. Right??

Wrong. You shouldn't be punishing the runner because the defense can't properly execute a simple throw and catch.Unless we have the batter-runner diong something intentional to interfere with the catch of the ball, we have incidental contact.

I don't believe the 45' lane was put into baseball for the reason you have just suggested. Instead of misquoting, I will let the historians explain here.

[Rich]

Originally posted by jicecone

Wrong. You shouldn't be punishing the runner because the defense can't properly execute a simple throw and catch.Unless we have the batter-runner diong something intentional to interfere with the catch of the ball, we have incidental contact.

I don't believe the 45' lane was put into baseball for the reason you have just suggested. Instead of misquoting, I will let the historians explain here.

Whatever happened to Steve Freix, anyway?

[scyguy]

so if I am wrong, what determines interference? Intent? Correct me if I am wrong but if batter-runner is running up the line, within 45 feet of 1st and his body is inside the foul line and a throw from catcher either hits him or catcher's throw is over the head of batter-runner and this leads to hindering the 1st baseman, then we have interference, whether intentional or not. How does this differ from my original post??

[Rich]

Originally posted by scyguy
so if I am wrong, what determines interference? Intent? Correct me if I am wrong but if batter-runner is running up the line, within 45 feet of 1st and his body is inside the foul line and a throw from catcher either hits him or catcher's throw is over the head of batter-runner and this leads to hindering the 1st baseman, then we have interference, whether intentional or not. How does this differ from my original post??

How is the throw in your play a quality throw that has a chance to retire the runner? This is a criterion for ANY running lane interference call.

Regardless, historically, the running lane has only applied on throws coming from the box formed by the intersection of the lines at the 45 foot mark between home and first and home and third.

No educated baseball person expects the umpire to bail out the defense -- why would you be looking to.

[scyguy]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

How is the throw in your play a quality throw that has a chance to retire the runner? This is a criterion for ANY running lane interference call.

Regardless, historically, the running lane has only applied on throws coming from the box formed by the intersection of the lines at the 45 foot mark between home and first and home and third.

No educated baseball person expects the umpire to bail out the defense -- why would you be looking to.

The box, that was what I was looking for. Now I have a reference to work from. This box you describe, where in Fed rules is it stated? Why is this the generally accepted area?

Remember, I am not trying to "bail out" anyone only trying to understand the proper ruling. Please use FED references.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy
so if I am wrong, what determines interference? Intent? Correct me if I am wrong but if batter-runner is running up the line, within 45 feet of 1st and his body is inside the foul line and a throw from catcher either hits him or catcher's throw is over the head of batter-runner and this leads to hindering the 1st baseman, then we have interference, whether intentional or not. How does this differ from my original post??

If a runner is heading towards first base, and a throw is coming from behind him, it is a lot easier for the runner to just run at the first basemen and cause interference. The interpreters saw this and came up with the rules that would allow for the runner to be in one area only, and then the fielders would be able to adjust.

Actually by defining these area it makes it easier for interference to be called. The runner is in the lane , or he is not, in those situations. Clearly, anywhere else on the field where the throw is not coming from behind the runner, it is difficult for the runner to so conviently interfer with the throw. Not that he can't, but believe me everyone will see it and even the most novice of officials would be able to make the call.

These are the rules and I believe a pretty close interpretation to the reasoning behind the call. We are there to calls them as we sees them, anything else, then we are changing the game to suit our feelings. Yes there may be times within the rules that we are allowed this previledge, but I don't believe this to be one of them.

[Rich]

Originally posted by scyguy

The box, that was what I was looking for. Now I have a reference to work from. This box you describe, where in Fed rules is it stated? Why is this the generally accepted area?

Remember, I am not trying to "bail out" anyone only trying to understand the proper ruling. Please use FED references.

It's not defined in any of the rule books -- it's just always been an accepted way. Any other throw will usually be a bad throw that causes such a collision. Or intentional interference -- and there's already rules on the books for that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
The box, that was what I was looking for. Now I have a reference to work from. This box you describe, where in Fed rules is it stated? Why is this the generally accepted area?

Remember, I am not trying to "bail out" anyone only trying to understand the proper ruling. Please use FED references.

From the 2004 Fed Interps:

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)

SITUATION 20: As B1 bunts, F2 fields the ball in front of home plate in fair ground. B1 is running in fair ground as he nears first base. F2 realizes he does not have a line of sight to F3 and tries to lob the ball over B1. F3 leaps but cannot catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference. Although F2 made an errant throw, B1 is guilty of interference by being out of the 3-foot running lane. (8-4-1g)

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Whatever happened to Steve Freix, anyway?

[/B]

LOL! He slayed his Internet dragons and rode off into the sunset, I suppose.