Re: i think you missing the point
 

When I don't call interference, the coach needs to tell his catcher to take his PC butt and sit it in the dugout. Batter-Runner did not force, coerce, cause, or intimidate the catcher into lobbing a ball into right field. It was simply a bad throw. Catcher needs to throw the ball to the first baseman - that's what you do to get runners out. If it happens to hit the runner when the runner is out of the 3-foot lane, it's a dead ball all running stops and not only is the BR is out, nobody else advances because the ball is dead due to the BR interference. Throw the damn ball. Lob it into right field or throw it somewhere besides to the first baseman and the defense loses - runner is safe and any other runners keep running while the defense chases the poor throw.

The running lane restriction is only at first base. Anywhere else on the field it is always a poor throw when you hit the runner or lob it into some other field. I cannot fathom why a lob or some other bad throw should be rewarded with an interference call at first base and not at every other base too. We already have an extra rule at first base that we don't have anywhere else - the 3-foot running lane rule. To guess/surmise/interpret/judge/pull it out of your... I find it ridiculous. You're guessing that the catcher adjusted his throw because of the runner and then you're guessing again that the first baseman couldn't catch the already guessed, misguided throw, again because of the runner's location. Soooo... based upon those guesses let's call an out and stop all the runners.

Even if it was a lob, it was still a bad lob. Reward the defense for that? I can't do it.

Perhaps we're moving toward that kickball rule where "if you hit them with the ball they are out..." and then we're going to add to it by saying "or throw it anywhere in the vicinity of the runner such that your baseman can't reach it to make the force out and the runner is out in that case too."

And one last thing, this idea of "real great players" making the throw while a "slightly less qualified player" making a poor lob so they won't hurt anyone is ludicrous... Are we talking about young men playing baseball or are we talking about Little League? Perhaps women's church league softball?

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on May 2nd, 2004 at 11:24 AM]

well
 

I guess the rules don't matter to you and well thats they way life goes. But the rule state interferes with a fielder making a play. It is obvious whether the catcher changes his throw because the runner is in the way. There is no guess work, and the call has nothing to do with it being a good throw or not, the call is prior to the result. By running outside the running lane and causing a bad throw or the chances of a bad throw, that is interference. The intent of the rule is to create a THROWING LANE. But closing it off and mking them take another route, the Runner blocked the THROWING LANE. At all other bags there is no rule to deal with therefore there is no interference even when the runner is hit by the THROWN BALL, so if your reasoning is that there's no rule at anyother bage re an a bad lob, why even call interferance on BR when hit by the ball since it also doesn't exist anywhere else???

Re: well
 

1) I'm not arguing rules. I'm arguing an interpretation. I've been taught, and it makes absolutely perfect sense to me, that if the catcher wants an out, he's got to throw the ball. You can't rule NOT THROWING THE BALL as interference. And to make it even easier to enforce, I've also been taught that you can't rule interference unless the batter-runner is hit with the ball. This makes the rule very simply enforceable. Anything else and we enter a gray area where one umpire could readily listen to a catcher say "I didn't throw the ball because the runner was in the way." and the umpire mumbles back... "Oh, okay. Uuhhh, runner is out for interference." And another umpire says... " I thought you were going to throw to 2nd for the double play."

One interpretation gives us an easily enforceable rule. Runner was out of the lane, ball was thrown, ball hit runner. Runner is out - interference.

The other interpretation can be nothing but subjective.... all the way from "I didn't throw the ball because the runner was in the way." to "I lobbed it into right field because the runner was in the way."

Answer me this. Catcher lobs, runner beats the throw and touches base, fraction of a second later first baseman catches ball with his foot on the bag. Runner safe or runner out for interference? Stop all other runners from advancing or let them keep going? Whatcha gonna do? I'm calling him safe and I'll bet nobody is going to argue with me.

2)Why only at 1st? Because at 1st we have a catcher that is retreiving a bunted ball or a dropped third strike and the catcher's throws follow a similar path to what the runner is following. There is regular opportunity for interference.

Obviously these are just my opinions but I don't see anything in the rule or the game that should prompt officials to interpret a catcher intentionally lobbing a ball to any location, as BR interference. The catcher's I work for I'm certain have been taught to make the throw. They jump up and yell "inside" or "outside" and they send it on a wire to 1st base. Occasionally, the BR gets hit but not often (twice a season maybe).

Twice a season... Holy crap. I've wasted more time yacking about this garbage than I will spend making the call for the rest of my life... nuff said. :D

Oooh and I searched but didn't find anything of BFair's discussionfrom last year. Somebody pull out their Jaska/Roder and tell us what it says.

This is relative to several other issues.

There is a requirement of a "Quality Throw." If BR is running inside and F2 throws it in the dugout, are you going to reward the D for a horseblank attempt? The D still has the repsonsibility to make a resonable effort.

Same with the situation of a batter's interference with a catcher's attempt to retire a runner. The catcher has to make the attempt. If he doesn't, well, there is no attempt. The batter can't interfere with an attempt that wasn't made. I hope no umpires reward the D for the catcher turning around and saying, "Uhhh, I couldn't throw it because he was in my way."

When all else fails, common sense and fair play can keep you out of trouble. This is a common sense situation.

What I mean by following his eyes is similar, but not exactly like a DB in football intentionally distracting a reciever with a hand in the face without looking back for the ball.

One point that I think needs to be made on thios ruling -- the OBR and FED rules are different.

Under OBR, BR is out if he interferes with "the fielder taking the throw" (6.05k)

Under FED, BR is out if he interferes with "a fielder or a throw." (8-4-1g)

Adding that "or a throw" makes a difference, imho.

doesn't some responsibility lie with the batter-runner? If coaches teach their players correctly, then the batter-runner will not be outside the running lane. If he is, then the possibility of interference is there. If he isn't, then no problem! Teach your kids how to run to first and it isn't an issue. I'm going to call it interference because the batter-runner should know better.