The NFHS rule book states that no runner can interfere with a throw by running outside of the 3 foot baseline down to first base (paraphrasing i believe), so this means that a throw must not necessarily hit the runner for interference to be called? thanks

How else would one interfere besides getting hit?

I always
 

. . . thought the same thing Tony until this season.

It is not FED but in an early season MLB game a lane violation was called (there is reference to it on this page somewhere) where the runner was obvious inside the line, HOWEVER THE THROW DID NOT HIT THE RUNNER it just went to his left and pst F3 and the interference was called . . .

Combine this with BFair's posts of last year where Rick Roder confirmed that a throw does not ONLY have to come from the little square behind the runner we are starting to see different views of what was once a pretty simple rule.

I am now confused, officially.

Tee

Holy cow
 

The runner was inside and the throw was even farther inside and the defense was rewarded for this obvious, poor throw!!!??

You're right. I'm confused with you.

Here are the pertinent rules:

OBR
7.09
(k) 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 umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, or attempting to field a batted ball; The lines marking the three foot lane are a part of that "lane" but the interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot "lane" or on the lines marking the "lane."

NFHS
8-4-1g
The batter runner is out when:
he runs outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.
EXCEPTION: This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fileder whi is attmpting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fileder or a throw.
NOTE: The batter is considered outside the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.

First of all notice that it is a "three-foot running lane." I've have heard some call it a 45-foot lane or those double "L" umps call it a 30 foot lane. It is referred to by its WIDTH - 3 foot.

(OBR 2.00, NFHS 2-21) Interference: offensive team act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fileder attempting to make a play.

I don't see it. A runner with his back to the approaching throw can't do much more than be a big target. Defense shouldn't have dropped that third strike or defense should have coordinated their throw/catch effort better - I've never seen it be very difficult.

Guess I'll have to do a Google search for Bfair's comments.

"I don't see it. A runner with his back to the approaching throw can't do much more than be a big target. Defense shouldn't have dropped that third strike or defense should have coordinated their throw/catch effort better - I've never seen it be very difficult.

Guess I'll have to do a Google search for Bfair's comments."[/B][/QUOTE]

I see it, and if the BR is following F3's eyes he can still put himself in a direct line between the fielder and F3 thus distracting his ability to see the complete throw.

Must be the BU if you can see BR's eyes.
 

The runner is still restricted to the three-foot running lane. Be a target in the running lane; follow F3's eyes all you want; defense has still got to make the play.

Would like to see F3 defend those actions to his coach after missing his catch. "Well the runner was looking at my eyes, Coach. What was I supposed to do?"

Maybe the catcher could come to his assistance, "Yeah, Coach, I could tell by the way he was bobbing his head in the running lane that he was watching his eyes. So I just threw the ball into right field. It's the runner's fault. The umpire should have called him out for interfering with his eyes. It's so distracting."

Sorry sarcasm's one of my strong points.

From 2004 Fed Interpretations:

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.

Which just proves that the NFHS sometimes doesn't have a clue.

So lob it over F3's head everytime. Perhaps a new rule is in the making ... if the catcher can lob it over the BR and F3's head, the umpire shall call the BR out for interference.

ooohh there's that sarcasm thing again. Damnit!

I disagree, in the NFHS interpretation the runner clearly interfered with the throw. By running out of the 3 foot wide running "lane," he interfered with the throw correct? I would like to know the correct interpretation and application of the rule, not peoples opinions on the NFHS not having a clue, which is irrelevant because we do not make the rules just enforce them. thanks

Combined with situation 19, I think the rule makes sense for HS -- it's up to the umpire to judge whether the throw was bad, or the result of interference.

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)

Until this ruling came out I had always ruled this play as not interference, since the runner did not interfere with the fielder's ability to catch the ball, ie the first baseman could not catch the ball over his head so there was no interference. I don't know, but I bet FED has ruled this way in the interest of safety since the other alternative for the catcher is to plug the runner in the back with the throw. I don't think I would rule this interference in OBR games.

Just being out of the lane doesn't constitute interference, even in FED baseball. Look at Situation 19.

And if you don't want opinions, don't read them -- I don't think you're entitled to decide what someone posts.

i think you missing the point
 

By making the catcher lob the ball rather than throw the ball, he interfered with the catchers ability to make the play. If this is done by the illegal act of running outside the three foot zone it's interferance, whether the 1st baseman catches or not.
The problem lies in the fact that a real great player drills the BR in the back or the back of the head with a throw and gets the interferance call, but a slightly less qualified player trys to circomvent the player so as not to injure someone. Which is what they are tought to do, since this PC world has taught that one needs to be fair and friendly at all times. So in the spirit of safety i think you need to realize that causing the player to alter his play isjust as much interferance and knocking the ball down.

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.